Menu

Hollywood 9/11 feature to favour human drama and ‘safe’ evidence

By Craig McKee

Can you make an “uplifting” Hollywood movie about 9/11? Should you try?

If your goal is to encourage people to question the official story, should you focus on the human cost of this horrific event with an eye to making the film a successful piece of dramatic entertainment? What evidence should be examined and what should be left out to avoid controversy within the Truth movement and condemnation from the media?

These questions haven’t been simple ones for first-time screenwriter Howard Cohen, who has written the script for A Violation of Trust (original title: Confession of a 9/11 Conspirator). The setting is the first day of a fictitious new investigation into the events of Sept. 11, 2001. Cohen says he believes that for the film to reach a wide audience that might question the events of 9/11, it has to reach them on an emotional level.

“Why can’t it be uplifting?” Cohen asked in an interview.

The film is being produced under the banner of Actors and Artists for 9/11 Truth and will tentatively star Ed Asner, Woody Harrelson, Martin Sheen, Daniel Sunjata and a number of other politically progressive actors. Cohen is still looking for most of the funding for the production, which he says should cost a modest $1 million. The casting can’t be finalized until the shooting schedule is decided.

The script has been revised many times with whole areas of evidence being excluded, included, then excluded again. The project is currently on its third director, Rafael Monseratte (Poundcake). Well-known French actor/director Mathieu Kassovitz (Amelie, Babylon A.D.) bowed out before Christmas. Cohen isn’t saying who the original director was.

Cohen says Kassovitz’s disaffection might have been the result of a dispute between organizers of the Citizens 9/11 Campaign and the group’s original frontman, former Senator Mike Gravel, over the disbursement of money. Kassovitz announced following the Toronto 9/11 Hearings last September that he was donating $50,000 to that effort.

“I don’t think [the dispute] put him in a great frame of mind,” Cohen says.

Most of the characters in the film will be real people who are being portrayed by actors. These include 9/11 Truth movement figures like David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage, Niels Harrit, and possibly April Gallop. Cohen says he’d like to use actual quotes from these people whenever possible.

A Violation of Trust is based on the writings of Griffin, the 9/11 Truth movement’s most prolific author, who recently co-founded the Consensus 9/11 project. The script is being written with Griffin’s participation and, one would assume, his blessing. But there are many important areas of research that Griffin examines in his books that Cohen isn’t touching – most notably the evidence that no 757 ever crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11.

I’ve read several versions of the script (the most recent one from December 2011), and some Pentagon and Shanksville evidence has been included at one time or another. But much of that has since been taken out in favour of safer evidence that Cohen believes will be less vulnerable to being picked apart by hostile mainstream media like Fox News.

“We’re trying to use bulletproof evidence in the script,” he says. “We’re not speculating about things that are not as factual or not proven.”

This includes evidence put forth by Citizen Investigation Team that a large airliner approached the Pentagon on the north side of the Citgo gas station but did not hit the building (proving that the fallen light poles were staged). Cohen says this eyewitness evidence is “not concrete enough.”

This cautious, safe approach is where Griffin has been trying to lead the 9/11 Truth movement for months. He has sought to get around the supposed controversy about whether anything hit the Pentagon by settling for points where consensus supposedly exists. Ironically, in trying to avoid what I would call contrived controversy, Griffin has created real controversy within the Truth movement over whether to put aside his own strong evidence for no 757 impact at the Pentagon.

Here are the steps Griffin has taken towards appeasing the anti-Pentagon-evidence crowd in recent months:

His address at the Toronto 9/11 Hearings in September liberally quoted critics of CIT like David Chandler, Jonathan Cole, and Frank Legge.

The Pentagon chapter in Griffin’s most recent book (9/11 Ten Years Later: When State Crimes Against Democracy Succeed) lays out the argument for and against Pentagon plane impact, again quoting the above three along with another CIT basher, Jim Hoffman. Griffin argues in the chapter that the evidence for no-757 impact is much stronger (he’s right, which makes it harder to understand why he would give these fringe anti-CITers so much credibility).

He co-founded the Consensus 9/11 project (this actually goes back a year), which features a panel of Truth movement members who vote yes or no on points that contradict the 9/11 official story. For a point to make the consensus list, 85% of members have to vote for it.

Now, he and Cohen appear to be pushing A Violation of Trust in the same “consensus” direction.

The first Pentagon point to make the Consensus Points list (consensus911.org) is also the one Cohen is betting his money on. He says the evidence that Hani Hanjour did not possess the skills to pilot Flight 77 into the Pentagon on the morning of 9/11 is a major blow to the official story. He says this is strong enough evidence without touching the question of whether anything hit the building in the first place.

But the Hanjour “evidence” is not nearly strong enough to prove inside job. In fact, it’s really quite weak on its own – not proof of anything. For the most part, the CIT bashers (whose motives I find suspicious) think we should drop the Pentagon altogether. I think, on the other hand, that it offers some of the strongest evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. If the Pentagon was indeed the scene of a faked plane crash, who else but the U.S. military could have staged it?

Here are a couple of problems I have with what I’ve seen of the script so far:

Right off the bat, there’s a problem with terminology. The film opens with a voiceover (bold is mine): “On September 11, 2001 the United States was attacked with over 3,000 lives lost … The 9/11 Commission was to provide the fullest possible accounting of the terrorist attacks and the National Institute of Standards and Technology was to investigate what caused the Twin Towers and Building 7 to collapse.”

The new investigation in the film is called by the U.S.’s first woman president who has decided there are enough unanswered questions to justify revisiting the subject(she’s concerned about “the kids.”) The problem with this is that it reinforces the false idea that the political leadership in the U.S. actually wants the truth. This misses the entire point: the elite will do everything in its power to hide the truth about 9/11; it certainly won’t permit a new president to blow the whole deal.

Cohen says more recent drafts of his script have emphasized the human element (involving the victims’ families) because he and the director feel that an emotional component to the film is essential for involving the audience in the story. This makes me nervous because I think of two pieces of 9/11 “entertainment” that focus on drama at the expense of facts: Oliver Stone’s awful World Trade Center and the purely fictitious United 93.

The vision statement for the A Violation of Trust, released in February by Cohen, referred to the objectives of the film including “healing, closure,” and the most incomprehensible of all, “forgiveness.” When I read this I was horrified. I’m hoping that this theme does not find its way into the film. It’s not closure or forgiveness we’re looking for, it’s the beginning of truth.

Here are some points the December script does cover:

Firefighters reported explosions, forced to stay quiet

Steel beams ejected from WTC at high speed

WTC steel hauled away quickly to be recycled

EPA withholds information about toxic air at Ground Zero

Buildings supposedly collapsed because steel “weakened”

Top of tower turned to dust in mid air.

Thermite found in dust

Thermite too fine for al-Qaeda to have produced

Towers exhibited numerous characteristics of controlled demolition

Building 7 also a controlled demolition

BBC reported collapse of Building 7 half an hour before it happened

Obvious conflict of interest for Philip Zelikow

9/11 Commission Report was pre-determined

Torture used to get information from alleged al-Qaeda members

The inexplicable “failure” of the military to intercept any planes

No four-digit hijack code dialled by any pilots

The fact that Hani Hanjour could not have flown Flight 77 into the Pentagon

Lack of damage to Pentagon lawn

No proof for claim that DNA of passengers was recovered from the Pentagon

NORAD’s version of events changed

Whereabouts of Dick Cheney prior to Pentagon event lied about(Mineta)

Evidence that a plane was shot down over Pennsylvania

No plane and no bodies in Shanksville field

No evidence of jet fuel in field

Evidence that the military was not kept in the dark by the FAA as claimed

PNAC and the “new Pearl Harbor”

Neocons wanted to redraw map of Middle East

U.S. in Afghanistan provides chance for oil pipeline

American media more about propaganda than truth

Cognitive dissonance: inability of public to cope with challenge to their world view

My belief continues to be that the “safe” approach – whether with this film or the movement as a whole – is not going to create the breakthrough that all members of the Truth movement agree needs to take place.

Yes, the evidence should be solid and backed up by science. But we can’t let the best evidence get tossed aside because a small group has succeeded in getting it labelled “controversial.” There are certainly infiltrators in the movement who are doing all they can to marginalize some of the strongest and most provocative 9/11 evidence.

I know what you mean. One of my fears is that the message will be watered down considerably to make it acceptable. That could be worse than no film at all.

As for timing, Cohen says he hopes to have it out by the end of the year, but that depends on when or whether he can raise the money. We’re not talking about a big-budget film that will play on thousands of screens, although that would be nice. But it will have some stars, so that gives it instant credibility. As for distribution, I would hope it’ll widely seen but it’s too early to tell.

I have always had a hard time deciding which of the great movies already made is the best. Each one seems to have some material that I like and some that I don’t like, and some that I wish had been included. I guess no one film can please everyone, and yet it is possible to have a “perfect storm” when all the elements for a successful launch fall into place. The story, the directing, the film stars, the marketing, current events, the season… who knows what.

I would like to see the film launch coincide with a ballot initiative effort in a given state to reopen the 9/11 investigation. The movie could then be widely promoted and distributed to blanket the state so that everyone in that state would at least be aware of its incontrovertible message. Perhaps then we could actually win a ballot initiative at the state level. Such a result would shock the nation and crack the wall of denial. This movie could be the catalyst.

The problem with a movie/documentary is just that they’re only a couple hours long. I’ve read almost every book Griffin has written and then a few more, too, on top of having watched most of the docs. What I notice is this: the more a person has taken in, the greater his/her certainty that it was an inside job . . . the direct ratio seems obvious to me. And most (that I know) have only watched a documentary or two. As damning as simply watching WTC7 fall is, it becomes even more so after reading “The Mysterious Collapse of . . . ” Of course, the point here is just that there’s a lot of information and it’s impossible to communicate it in even a single book that might take a couple days to read, much less in two hours.

At any rate, the documentaries serve their purpose, no doubt: they expose the idea, normally for the first time, to people . . . I first heard this information from a documentary.

And, of course, production quality counts, like it or not. I’ve went back to some of the docs I first watched and realized they looked a bit poorer than I’d remembered. Even though the information may (or may not be) totally legit, correct, and everything else, it still ends up appearing that some random (uninformed) Joe made it in his basement . . . which takes away from credibility . . . once again, like it or not. This is kind of why I’ve been inclined to introduce the idea to people with “911 Press for Truth,” even though it doesn’t directly mention collapse or other stuff; (one person kind of mentions the collapse issue, but only in passing). Press For Truth looks good, and so people are more likely to watch it to its end and take it (more) seriously.

Yes, I agree: no film might be better than one that’s watered down. You’re dealing with a sh!t-ton of information and only a couple hours to convey it in . . . if you water it down, you just blew the whole thing a great blow it shouldn’t have to take.

Should you focus on the human cost of this horrific event? … Cohen says he believes that for the film to reach a wide audience that might question the events of 9/11, it has to reach them on an emotional level.

It seems to me that playing on emotions and fears is what got us into this mess (e.g., the destruction of America and its values).

Many factors from my research have me convinced that the human cost of 9/11 on 9/11 (plus a week or month) is far less than the touted ~3,000. The numbers were trumped up, played up, and manipulated by design.

The true human cost of 9/11 needs to expand to foreign lands, where our military purposely did not keep accurate casualty numbers.

If an emotional element of a 9/11 movie is to be brought into play, it has to be shock-and-awe. Think of the footage of the Nazi death camps after the war, and how the US military forced the local Germans to tour the camps to impress upon them the understanding of the atrocities that their leaders inflicted, whether or not they participated or were aware.

9/11 shock-and-awe would need to be cause-and-effect. The US leaders faked an attack on American soil so that Americans would dispense with any moral or religious qualms in the measure of their retaliation on both an individual human level and a society level in the lands and their riches that America wanted to control. Invasion and toppling of governments in Afghanistan and Iraq to allegedly prevent further state-sponsered terrorism is one thing. Yet, the utter distruction of infracture together with the torture and mistreatment of prisoners contrary to any code of international law is entirely another, and was in the planning of 9/11. It was designed to be rubbed off on Americans at home in the destruction of their rights as well as their morals.

The subject needs a Kubrick, a real maverick – and this doesn’t sound like that is what is happening. Sounds more like movie making by committee. I’ve been on shows like that, and they are always crap.

I have no apologies for my cynicism, it took a lot of years and hard work to develop.

Anyway, the report on this by Craig is top notch…maybe he should write the script.

Who will be receiving any profits from this film? Is there financial transparency? Are they soliciting for volunteer not paid labor as well as donations? Is anyone involved getting paid for their work?

I enjoy reading your write ups Craig. I know that a lot of thought goes into all of them.
No punches pulled and subtle at the same time.

Set the scene.

All cameras and attention are on Manhattan (naturally). Cue a sudden break to Arlington, a whole collection of witnesses see an aircraft bearing down on a gridlocked road in front of the Pentagon, we can see the aircraft from all perspectives (split screen)…Cut! Don’t show anything but a bright flash.

Show their perspective of the bridge where the plane should have went and Lloyd’s cab.

Show the some of the same witnesses claiming to have “seen” the alleged impact.

Show the OCT “impact” and directional damage.

Show the reaction of these witnesses to being told that the OCT aircraft flew over that bridge. That it HAS to follow this path. A path defined within FEET and INCHES.

Show Lloyd’s virtual admission.

Cue first responders, reporters on the scene and the poor bastards who were in the Pentagon claiming not to have seen “any evidence of a plane having crashed there”. Cue Rumsfeld not having the cojones to publically and officially state that a plane had “crashed” there until he saw where the chips lay well over an hour later.

Cue multiple evacuations and false reports of explosions throughout Washington. The reports that “flight 77” had “crashed” in Kentucky.

Wait, throw these few examples of the contradiction that is the Pentagon on the edit floor.

Let’s go with a few shots of the lawn…maybe ignore an actual victim whose son was partially brain damaged in the attack because what she experienced is “controversial”…sigh.

On a sidenote, “attack on the United States” could be replaced by “the people of the United States” but the “terrorists” angle will be the litmus test of what this film is actually trying to portray. Contradictory LIHOP nonsense. I mean, scroll through the evidence that this film allegedly covers. What do “terrorists”, obviously referring to Al CIAduh, have to do with or would have had control over? NORAD stand down? “Thermite”? WTC7?

I’d go and see that movie. And a movie with that content would open a lot of eyes. That’s the tragedy of the “safe” “consensus” approach. The fear is that one mistake will invalidate all the evidence. But the real danger is that the weight of evidence presented isn’t that impressive. And NOBODY is going to be blown away by Hani Hanjour’s bad piloting skills. Thanks, OSS.

I think taking a cue from Oliver Stone’s, JFK might be beneficial. He had several instances of ‘either or’ suggestions in portions of that film, while still not ruining the flow of the drama.

It takes a mighty strong willed director with a certain charisma to deal with the beancounters and financiers producing such things.

Meanwhile…I have some sneaking intuitions that this film will never get to the editing stage.
I see wobbly all over this project.

I am not getting whatever it is that 911ARTISTS is saying for sure…he might be saying close to the same thing I am…but maybe from a more personal angle, or maybe not. I would like some clarity made of what exactly he means without bopping around his URLs.

hybridrogue1, I think that they are trying to set up a situation where people donate money and work for no pay as Howard Cohen and I don’t know who else personally financially profit. To me and in this context, the language in the two quotes I placed above is telling, offensive, and absurd in the extreme.

David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage, and others created a cult. Griffin was well educated in how to do this. A cult ends up serving the power and the financial power of it’s leaders.

This movie is not about the Truth. It’s not about the Truth Movement. It’s an attempt to glorify their cult. It’s an effort to use people to make money.

“This includes evidence put forth by Citizen Investigation Team that a large airliner approached the Pentagon on the north side of the Citgo gas station but did not hit the building (proving that the fallen light poles were staged). Cohen says this eyewitness evidence is “not concrete enough.””

Did you press him as to exactly WHY this is not concrete enough? In the past, when I’ve seen people make this claim and they are challenged on it, they either (1) fall silently into the shadows, (2) repeat proven disinfo on the subject (either deliberately or dupedly) or (3) show their ignorance on the subject, as 911blogger LeftWright did when he said that this was all “subjective analysis of subjective evidence.” As Barrie Zwicker said to me in an email a year or more ago, this “cleverly brief but only briefly clever. Like other hollow statements (i.e. “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”) it is not sustainable when tested.”

Of course, I’m guessing that Cohen’s response would probably be: “Because many of the movement’s finest scholars are saying it’s bad info.”

Nice job once again Craig, I sent your article to our local group and said that alongside Kevin Barrett you’re the best “columnist” the movement has right now.

Looking back over my notes (this comment from Cohen came in the first of three conversations I’ve had with him over the past several weeks), it’s hard for me to tell how hard I pushed. My guess is that I probably didn’t push that hard because what he said was something I’d heard so many say before, and I knew already that he was skipping the “controversial” stuff. At that point, I was confronting the possibility that he would ignore even the physical evidence that a 757 never crashed.

Here are some quotes from Cohen re: CIT not being in the movie:

• It’s not strong enough
• I’m not persuaded 100%; there’s something missing here
• You can’t prove it one way or another
• We can’t cover everything
• It’s not a point I’m comfortable putting in
• It’s got to be something we can really stand behind
• You’ve got to pick your battles

His script suggests that he has the basics down well enough to show a general audience what the problems are with the official story. The problem is that he has gotten sucked into the idea that you don’t need the “controversial” evidence when there’s so much mediocre stuff around!

But I keep going back to how I became convinced. It was an accumulation of the most powerful evidence. The Pentagon (no plane wreckage, no lawn damage, witnesses who saw a different flight path, the ridiculous “punch out hole” Lloyde England, ), Building 7 (freefall, Barry Jennings, “collapse” reported too soon molten metal), the impossibility of tower collapse from fire or plane crash, the fact that cell phone calls were impossible, and so much more.

The Hani Hanjour info is good but only as part of an all-out assault of evidence against the OS.The accumulation of facts makes the OS look absurd. Thinking the towers are all we have to look at is missing the point of how the uninitiated begin to have doubts.

No one will ever be convinced because of a few pieces of cautious evidence. We need a little shock ‘n’ awe of our own. And we need to worry less that one piece of evidence that doesn’t work out will destroy the whole house of cards.

SINCERE truthers have to find a way to come together without dumping a gallon of water in their wine.

“SINCERE truthers have to find a way to come together without dumping a gallon of water in their wine.”~Craig

That is my thinking exactly, just because some of the evidence is “controversial” doesn’t mean it is disproven – it is the very controversy of it that gives it the punch to knock someone out of their stupor.

Refining our thoughts is always going to be from our personal considerations at any rate.

“As Barrie Zwicker said to me in an email a year or more ago, this “cleverly brief but only briefly clever. Like other hollow statements (i.e. “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”) it is not sustainable when tested.”

I might agree with the “cleverly brief…” aspect of this – however going on to; “guns don’t kill people, people kill people,” as a hollow statement that is “not sustainable when tested,” is scattering the argument.

That is unless you are one of those “liberals” who are against the 2nd Amendment. It is a fact that a gun will not kill anyone unless it is fired by a person. And I recognize that this statement has it’s caveats involving ‘misfires’, and faulty mechanisms in some incidents.

I am not suggesting we get into an argument over guns at this point. The point I am making is that some allegories are inapplicable to our specific argumentation.

As you will note, I already have misgivings about Cohen’s attitudes concerning the making of this film. I appreciate both your and Zwicker’s intellect and points of argumentation – I am only pointing out that you take the chance of making a dialectical divide by inserting a controversy of an entirely different category.

The evidence that CIT highlight and use to come to their conclusions is valid evidence -eyewitness evidence is valid evidence per se. The problem is the fundamentally flawed way they assess it, and other evidence, to reach those conclusions.

I agree with larry27, it seems that is the logic behind the assertions of the NoC argument.
As Larry remarks the logic is spot on.

I would say that the logic of the summery is perhaps less than needed in a full accounting for all of the evidence beyond that summarized. That being a penumbra of other witness testimonies, and the problems of proving one way or the other how the light posts were clipped.

There is in fact a preponderance of counter testimony to the Citco witnesses.

I am not taking sides in this issue one way or the other. I have great difficulty with all of the theories involving the Pentagon strike, the government assertion, the Citco assertions, the no-plane at all assertions….none of it is satisfactory to my thinking.

I am inclined to think that an auto-piloted military plane mocked up with the airlines livery flew into the Pentagon, first firing a missile seconds before the plane hit.

But I don’t think it is essential to prove anything as per this incident – beyond the fact that it actually happened to the single most important building of the worlds most powerful and advanced military to ever exist on this planet. And it is the anomalies of the official ‘stories’ told by the military as to how they failed to respond in any way whatsoever, that makes a slam dunk against the official mythos.

In at least one animated version of the “plane” hitting the Pentagon, the makers made sure to depict a wing hitting a construction trailer (for a generator) and pushing it askew with the building, undoubtedly to account for the aftermath when it was found parked neither perpendicular nor parallel. the askew alignment of that trailer matched the alleged plane’s trajectory. A portion of the roof of that trailer was sheered off and it was heavily fire damaged. No photographic evidence has been forthcoming to show a damaged generator within. Consider this data point one.

Data point two is all of the bruha over the flight data recorder (FDR), which initially had the final four seconds missing and then were miraculously recovered by a mysterious data inspecting sleuth. Although the recovered final seconds shows a smooth trajectory into the building, discrepancies on the order of 125 feet exist between the readings of a barametric altimeter and some other digital altimeter, the latter being used in the reconstruction of data to supposedly prove a plane hit. Chain of custody and all sorts of anomalies scream FDR tainting.

Data point three is April Gallop who was within the damaged area, crawled out through the entrance hole, and reported seeing no plane wreckage within the building. Data point four is the lack of photographic evidence from within the damaged area that would show plane parts, etc. Data point five are several military witnesses to the aftermath reporting the smell of military explosives.

Mr. HybridRogue1 wrote:

I am inclined to think that an auto-piloted military plane mocked up with the airlines livery flew into the Pentagon, first firing a missile seconds before the plane hit.

Let’s do some math just so we can bring some reality to this scenario. Let’s say it was n seconds before impact that the missile was launched, the plane was flying at v miles per hour, and there are roughly 5280 feet in a mile and 60*60 seconds in an hour. Thus a missile flight distance D would be defined as:

To my knowledge, not a single eye-witness saw any missile launched from the plane, nor any 777 ft to 2332 ft missile flight, nor any missile exhaust trail that length.

I am inclined to think that an auto-piloted military plane mocked up with the airlines livery flew the precision 2,200 ft downward 330-degree spiral that went 125 ft over the Pentagon. The construction trailer was already parked askew and contained a missile instead of a generator. The Pentagon renovations to this wing planted other explosives. Launching of the missile and detonation of other explosives were timed to the plane flying overhead. The downed light poles were staged in the early morning hours.

D refers to the distance from the building that the proposed event (e.g., missile launch) occurred. If the missile had a visible jet/rocket smoke trail, D is how long it would be. n is the time prior to impact for the event.

You suggested a time n = 0.1 seconds. I just had to laugh out loud at your boojie woojie high school math:

That would be less that 8 feet in the blink of an eye…no witness would have been able to tell.

Maybe it was a typo. Your decimal point is off one place, making your calculations off by an order of magnitude. I’ll try not to rub your nose in it too much.

At n = 0.1 [second], D = 77.7 [feet]

Seventy-seven feet is as big as an RV or two. My point is that most videos of launched missiles that I have seen show distinct jet/rocket smoke tails and trails. Sometimes they even linger in the air. If your premise of the aircraft launching a missile were true, witnesses would have commented on this artifact, I would think.

In addition to this, 77 feet is very close to the building and the alleged aircraft was at a very low altitude practically (but not technically) scraping the ground and the prestine lawn. A rocket launched at an elevation under this and far enough ahead of the aircraft to be a bunker-busting force to clear a path in time seems like a stretch to me.

This is why I say that if a missile was involved, it was likely fired from point-blank range, and the final askewed alignment of that construction trailer to the building happens to be coincident with the line connecting the dots of lightpoles and inner ring damage. The real aircraft was at 125 feet and kept on flying (ala CIT and flyover).

Because of the Russian, to be more exact the Soviet-made nuclear-tipped missile that hit the Pentagon on 9/11.

What? I think you better explain that and, please go slowly.

The Americans, understandably, demand from the Russians to find a fall guy or a patsy (or a
group of fall guys) who is/are responsible for the missile that was found in the middle of the
Pentagon. Considering that the missile was actually nuclear-tipped (with a half-megaton thermonuclear
warhead that is more than 25 times the size of the Hiroshima bomb) you can imagine that
the Americans are quite insistent with their demands to the Russians to find, at last, the culprit
and to surrender him to the US Justice.”

the point I would make in looking at those 5 lines is, before they reach their conclusion that the plane flew over the Pentagon ,where is all the evidence from all the eyewitnesses who say the plane did not fly over the Pentagon? – and that would just be the eyewitness evidence. It’s a basic principle of evidence assessment that all of the evidence is weighed up before you reach a conclusion. The eyewitness evidence on the first line is the evidence that they use to reach their conclusion, conclusion 2 , that the plane flew over the Pentagon, but all the eyewitness evidence from people who said the plane did not fly over the Pentagon is omitted. There isn’t even a suggestion that it exists. It would hardly be surprising that someone would be saying how their conclusions are ‘definitive’ and ‘conclusive’ and ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ when they reached their conclusion without reference to the evidence that contradicts it. Other people assessing the event have to take into account all of the evidence and deal with the all the contradictions etc before they reach a conclusion . but for the CIT people , it’s so simple really, don’t deal with that evidence until after you reach your conclusion.
The very fact that you can write out their evidence assessment in those 5 lines is an indication – assessing evidence is not a linear process. You don’t take part of the evidence of an event, come to a conclusion, conclusion 1, and then decide the veracity of all of the other evidence based on that conclusion. You have some evidence from an event and you have a working hypothesis, and you then look at all the other evidence , with the same objectivity that you used to look at this original evidence. It’s a constant process of going back and forth assessing and re-assessing all the evidence, weighing up one thing against another with no evidence immune from re-assessment. It’s not a linear process.
To me this is a fundamentally flawed assessment of evidence, and ignores just the basics of proper evidence assessment, which undermines the credibility of any conclusions drawn from it.

You are clearly unaware of the full body of CIT’s work and you are simply wiggling out of the logic without providing any evidence to support your claims. The logic that you laid out is specifically concerning the location of the plane in relation to the gas station which, if true, unequivocally proves that there was an event staged specifically for the purpose to deceive eyewitnesses in the area that the plane hit. You are also conveniently leaving out the fact that millions of people were already convinced that the plane did not hit by the physical evidence long before the north side approach was uncovered simply confirming this relatively widespread belief. Your notion that “all the eyewitness evidence from people who said the plane did not fly over the Pentagon is omitted” is inherently false since even the Citgo witnesses believed this, and since CIT actually interviewed dozens of witnesses as laid out in in several presentations and articles on their website that it seems you have not reviewed. So the north side evidence does not stand on its own and the physical evidence supporting the notion that the plane did not hit is all laid out in the beginning of National Security Alert. Again, a north side approach, if true, proves that people were intentionally deceived with regard to a plane impact. That is the clear and unavoidable implication of this. The fact that more people than the Citgo witnesses were deceived into believing an impact just as the Citgo witnesses were does not refute the north side approach that they report. The only way to refute the north side approach is to present stronger counter evidence for a south side approach. To my knowledge, none of CIT detractors have done this.

I disagree with you regarding Cimino’s article. It seems to me that he’s pretty much just ranting about his opinion hoping you will accept his authority on the matter. I don’t see much if any evidence presented. Likewise you seemed to be simply accepting the authority of those who argue against the north side approach when you said “There is in fact a preponderance of counter testimony to the Citco witnesses.” I haven’t seen any of this alleged counter testimony and you didn’t cite any. I’ve just seen CIT’s detractors do what A.Wright just did by falsely stating the notion that a witness believes in an impact is counter testimony to the placement of the plane on the north side. Given the immediate implications of intentional deception when considering a north side approach this is clearly faulty logic which is made even more obvious by the fact that that even the Citgo witnesses also initially thought the plane hit. CIT detractors do not cite witnesses who specifically place the plane south of the gas station at all let alone enough testimony to be strong enough to counter over a dozen witnesses who very specifically place it on the north.

I don’t think there is any controversy about the numbers of witnesses who claimed to see the airplane counter to the CIT witnesses. These reports are too well known to have to site anymore. It’s been ten fracking years dood.

But I will add my own caveat to that; it is well known how the FBI leads witnesses in their testimonies…so is this preponderance of counter CIT testimony convincing considering the MO of the authorities? No, this is not necessarily so.

I have seen the CIT complete presentation. I have read a lot of their continuing contentions.
I haven’t rejected it out of hand – I haven’t even rejected it. I have stated before and I will state again – the Pentagon issue is an OPEN CASE, from my point of view.

The most important information, and such that I find valid from Cimino’s article has to do with his analysis of the FDR. I am not a pilot, nor an aeronautical engineer, so I take my understandings of these things from…hah…pilots and aeronautical engineers – I know that may seem strange to some, but that is my mode.
If you would like to read more on this, and I think it would be well worth your time, here is a URL for further arguments between Stutt, Balsamo, and Cimino:

I think this is the 5th of five pages, so go to the beginning and read the whole thing.

Now, additionally, when I say that Cimino’s article is so important, that means that the FDR information he gives is important. That doesn’t mean that I accept every assumption he makes in that article.

If you or anyone else has a ‘darling theory’ that you accept in full, that is fine by me. For myself, the Pentagon is the most complex and convoluted of the whole 9/11 kettle, and I don’t see enough of this as ‘settled’ to buy one theory or another in it’s entirety.

Have you read the article on the FDR data? This data provided by the government is a proven hoax.

Aslo consider, there is a system, known as “Identification Friend or Foe” aka I.F.F., which uses a special MODE 4A feature that only military aircraft use, whereupon special encryption. Additionally, a mission specific MODEX aka SEDSCAF number for each plane is assigned and if it does not meet the PLAN OF THE DAY for the area, IT STILL IS NOT GOING TO PASS MODE 4A MUSTER. It would be shot down.
“The proper MODEX / SEDSCAF NUMBER is what enables an aircraft them to penetrate prohibited or military restricted airspace such as that which surrounds both the White House and the Pentagon, as well as a number of military installations around the globe. This feature is necessary to prevent the possible mis-identification of a civilian aircraft by military air defense personnel who man radar scopes in the Washington, D.C. area, 24/7, watching for unauthorized aircraft who do not have the proper MODE 4A response capability or code in use with their on board transponders. Only military aircraft have this Mode 4A capability, or what is often referred to as ‘crypto Beacon Video’ military ATC specialists.”

Put this together with Norman Mineta’s testimony about Cheney and the conversation with the “young man” reporting the position of an incoming craft that morning. [Stand Down Orders]

John Farmer [commission member] just posted a document from the 9/11 Commission files that strongly supports Norman Mineta’s public testimony before the 9/11 Commission.

The document is a Secret Service log from 9/11, and confirms that the Secret Service was tracking what was presumed to be American Airlines flight 77 as it approached Washington on September 11, 2001.

Farmer, who pursued the FOIA request for the 9/11 RADES radar data (released in October 2007) explains in his post that the radar data from 9/11 agrees perfectly with the Secret Service timeline. Farmer has the 9/11 radar data in his computer and has made it available to other 9/11 researchers.

Also there is the original Bureau of Transportation and Statistics site that show: NO American Airlines Flt. 77 scheduled to depart Washington Dulles Airport on 9-11-2001
[Same thing for the other 3 planes of 9/11 as well]

Now you have made some strong points about the proper approach to investigation in this thread. These are not issues for you to merely hand-wave and ignore. These are issues for you to address here and now.

You present yourself as a reasonable person. You can write a clear construction in sentences and paragraphs. So perhaps you can reconcile these sorts of things, where so many times we get reports from mainstream sources that are scrambled BS contradicting other scrambled BS.

The Flight Data Recorder (FDR) was found early in the morning of September 14, 2001. Government reports indicate the FDR was found at the entrance hole of the collapsed E ring. However, The ASCE Building Performance Report and a new book published by the Dept Of Defense claims the FDR was found at the exit hole in the C-Ring. “[FDR] found in the building near the hole in the inner C Ring wall leading to A-E Drive.”

Pilots For 9/11 Truth received data and information from the National Transportation Safety Board claimed to be from American Airlines Flight 77 Flight Data Recorder through Freedom Of Information Act requests. Analysis of the Flight Data Recorder does not support the govt story of American Airlines Flight 77 impact with the pentagon. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment.
________________________

C’mon now A. Wright, do not abandon ship just yet. Perhaps you are busy with family for Easter, that is understandable – however it seems your MO is to suddenly disappear under fire.
You should understand that leaves a bad impression on a forum such as this. So, stand and deliver.

Of all major U.S. airline crashes within the U.S. investigated and published by the National Transportation Safety Board during the past 20 years, the 9/11 ‘black boxes’ are virtually the only ones without listed serial numbers.

The United States government alleges that 4 registered Boeing commercial passenger aircraft were used in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, yet has failed to produce any physical evidence collected from the 3 9/11 crash scenes positively tied to these federally registered United and American airlines aircraft. Despite the release of abundant information regarding the 9/11 flights and the aircraft reportedly used, specific information that would confirm official allegations regarding the identity of these aircraft has been mysteriously withheld or denied upon request.

A 11/26/2007 Freedom of Information Act request of the Federal Aviation Administration for the last known serial numbers of the flight data recorders and other components contained by the aircraft said to have been used during the 9/11 attacks, was unlawfully denied.

@hybridrogue1
If you want a considered response to something, I’ve found an arrogant ill mannered attitude to the people you are talking to is not the way to elicit it. You directed me to a long article that I have not read fully yet and that I may, if I feel like it ,and if I can get the time , respond to. That’s the way it works. What I have read so far of it seems to be specious, contentious and poorly thought out , and also poorly written, not that I would hold that against it. But that would be a bit of an off-hand, blanket response which is presumably not what you want.

Let’s see now, your answer thus far is of such ‘substance’ as I am arrogant and ill mannered, the article is ‘specious, etc’…

Yes Wright, you are intensely correct, I do not want a generalized blanket response – I want you to tell me why you can “reason” so well in the abstract, but then when it comes to facing the OBVIOUS FACT the the so-called ‘government’ hasn’t proved a single fracking thing about their 9/11 story – you are all twiddle thumbs and hissy-farts?

Rather than leave you with the task of reading the whole article ‘which you may if you FEEL LIKE IT’ – I have provided several posts worth of points to consider, counter, or blow off like your galloping MO says you will.

You want to know why I am “ill mannered” with people like you Wright?

It is because you assume this jejune naive stance that you are somehow innocent of all the carnage that has taken place on this planet, which is directly related to this bullshit excuse of 9/11 as a “terrorist attack” on poor little USA – the always ever so innocent, brave. and upright people who only want to ‘spread freedom and democracy” to a “misguided world”.

So – you want to talk about “arrogance”? You want to talk about specious bullshit Wright?

This is NOT just an academic discussion monkeyboy – this is about warmongering maniacs murdering innocent people all over the world and laying a hard core police state on the domestic population here.

Just consider the last post before you responded – what about that Wright? What do you make of that? And that is typical of the whole 9/11 case. You got some apologia that you think is going to shine up that crap? Let’s hear it.

@larry27
Actually I am aware of CIT’s work and interviews etc. which is why I put up the logic of how they arrive at their conclusion, and it’s a logic which you agreed with and said was sound logic.
quote
:”The logic that you laid out is specifically concerning the location of the plane in relation to the gas station which, if true, unequivocally proves that there was an event staged specifically for the purpose to deceive eyewitnesses in the area that the plane hit.”
i.e. If the plane flew NOC then it ‘unequivocably proves’ that the plane flew over the Pentagon.
How do CIT establish where the plane flew? From the evidence of the eyewitnesses talking about where the plane flew. When these witnesses say the plane hit the Pentagon, you say that this is not relevant to establishing where the plane flew.
quote
“The only way to refute the north side approach is to present stronger counter evidence for a south side approach. ”
and
” I’ve just seen CIT’s detractors do what A.Wright just did by falsely stating the notion that a witness believes in an impact is counter testimony to the placement of the plane on the north side.”

The conclusion that the plane flew on the north side of the gas station is reached from evidence about where the plane flew. The conclusion about where the plane flew ‘unequivocally proves’ that the plane flew over the Pentagon. This is exactly the logic I outlined and that you agreed with. The evidence from all the people who contradict that second conclusion played no part in arriving at that conclusion. It’s as if they didn’t exist. How does someone arrive at a conclusion about an event without having to deal with the evidence that contradicts that conclusion?
If there is evidence from an event that suggests a conclusion, then you have a working hypothosis that it is true. You then say ‘well if that’s true, if conclusion 1 is true then that would mean conclusion 2 would have to be true. Ok lets see what evidence there is about 2’ which brings in all the available evidence about 2, to be weighed up and assessed- before any conclusion has been reached about it. That’s how you test a working hypothosis. That’s why you have a working hypothosis and don’t go straight from some initial evidence, straight to a conclusion and then reach other conclusions based on that conclusion.

You seem to have skipped over some evidence, and are obviously loath to address it.

So, one more time, how can you read this and account for it being anything but a cover-up?

20 years of TSB protocol dumped for this one event:

‘Of all major U.S. airline crashes within the U.S. investigated and published by the National Transportation Safety Board during the past 20 years, the 9/11 ‘black boxes’ are virtually the only ones without listed serial numbers.

The United States government alleges that 4 registered Boeing commercial passenger aircraft were used in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, yet has failed to produce any physical evidence collected from the 3 9/11 crash scenes positively tied to these federally registered United and American airlines aircraft. Despite the release of abundant information regarding the 9/11 flights and the aircraft reportedly used, specific information that would confirm official allegations regarding the identity of these aircraft has been mysteriously withheld or denied upon request.’

______

Like I said before, you have the ability for abstract reasoning when it suits you, but if evidence that doesn’t fit your bill shows up, you do the same sort of disingenuous side-step you just accused the CIT of dancing.

Isn’t there a word for this? Isn’t this generally known as “hypocrisy”?

“i.e. If the plane flew NOC then it ‘unequivocably proves’ that the plane flew over the Pentagon.
How do CIT establish where the plane flew? From the evidence of the eyewitnesses talking about where the plane flew. When these witnesses say the plane hit the Pentagon, you say that this is not relevant to establishing where the plane flew.”

Take the testimony of the two Pentagon police officers at the Citco station. Consider their POV.
THEY CANNOT SEE THE ACTUAL FACE OF THE PENTAGON from where they were located.
They see the plane fly towards the Pentagon from the north. The see it go over the rise. Next they see the result of an explosion. They ASSUME this means the plane crashed into the Pentagon – but again they did NOT actually SEE the plane hit the Pentagon.

They would not see the plane fly over because of the smoke obstructing their view.

And they are outraged that only PART if their testimony is highlighted by CIT.
However if their testimony of the north side fly over of Citco is accurate – the plane could NOT have hit the light poles.

How does this not compute with you?

Regardless of any other point, you have an unexplained anomaly just in this.

If you have an explanation that reconciles the north path testimony with the downing of the light poles – I am dying to hear it.

“David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage, and others created a cult. Griffin was well educated in how to do this. A cult ends up serving the power and the financial power of it’s leaders.”

Did this revelation come to you before or after your spat about the 911Artists title Paul?

Now, I’ve personally lost a lot of faith recently in the “Truth leadership” but for you to bring your gripe here and link to TruthAction and 911Blogger, where it was accepted with open arms, and where many of the opinions and uncomfortable facts discussed by contributors here would have us out on our ears beggars belief, man.

Do you see what my problem was and still is with you in our previous chat?

Even if Cohen is being lead up the garden path (by some of the same people at those forums you linked to), or is agenda-driven or whatever – even if some members of the public who wouldn’t have accessed the information about WTC7, or make them look twice at the OCT, I’m all for it. Baby steps if that’s what it takes.

Only time will tell what Cohen’s intentions are and how much cojones he has. But I don’t think that’s the issue with you. Is it?

Mr. Cohen has just informed me he won’t be talking to any more “third parties” about the film to avoid “any misquotes.” He added that this isn’t directed at me in particular and had nothing to do with the article I wrote. What do you make of that?

What I make of it, is that Cohen is out to try to get a film off the ground. Chattering with nay sayers isn’t going to help in this.

I myself am dubious as to what the results of this film might be. But all of the prejudgment is yet just wind at any rate.

Consider that most films are made under the types of ‘security’ cover as the operations of state. I have worked on too many films to count, where the slightest detail being given to the public is grounds for a firing squad.

Perhaps Cohen expected nothing but applause because “our” own film, “the Truth Movement’s” is about to be made – well…if he isn’t already aware of the disputes already raging on the issue of what that “truth” is, then he has begun with one naive foot forward.

I still wish a director with some personal clout and vision was going to take the helm of something like this. But if anyone seriously believes that another movie about 9/11 is going to yank the rug out from under the feet of the Empire that pulled off this hit in NY….Lol

Personally I am more concerned with what the next false flag event is going to be, and have had my ears to the tracks….there’s a train a’comin’ and it has the vibes of a long one with a heavy load…

Like so many people involved in this situation you jump to conclusions and insults. This is after I fulfilled your request above and treated you with respect. Your wrong.

After almost 3 years of my struggling to broadcast Artists for 9-11 Truth and never trying to make money off it David Ray Griffin, Howard Cohen, and others created Actors and Artists for 9-11 Truth against my objections to the extremely similar title only. That title made it massive overshadowing of a project with much less resources. It was and is completely unnecessary.

Now what they refer to as one of 12 professional organizations supposedly designed to benefit 9-11 Truth is apparently a vehicle to garner donations and volunteer labor as some there make money off the results. It’s absurd. All this is an expression of their avarice and cult mind.

Please reconsider your position and manner in regards to this situation.

But man, it is a big world out there, I think that blaming them for their title being “similar” to yours is a bit beyond the pail. After all, it ISN’T the same name. Is it?

You know that you cannot “copyright” a name. You can get a “Trademark”, but this still will not entirely copyright a name.

I could write a story called ‘The Blade Runner’ and publish it, if it is merely the title and has no recognizable connections story-wise to the film ‘Blade Runner’. By the same token, I can copy a picture stroke for stroke, and sell it as an original work as long as I sign my own name rather than the original artists. [reproductions may be a different issue’]

Copyright and Trademark laws can get more complex than this, but as a general rule, you should see what I am getting at.

I took a look at your site, it is interesting, but how it could be mistaken for the other group, or how the other group could be mistaken for yours is beyond my comprehension. Why don’t you look at it as a booster for traffic? Some people may find your site looking for the other, they might like it enough to bookmark it and look around.

I think you are only hurting yourself holding on to sour grapes on this head. Remember no one can hurt your own feelings but yourself. It is your own internal emotional field that determines such reactions.

At any rate, I didn’t mean for the insult to cut so deep, and I apologize.

One more thing, and I hope this experience of my own will help make you feel a bit better.

If you type my name in your browser such: ‘Willy Whitten Sculpture’, what you will see are countless connections to online and physical stores selling my pieces. Some will make more than passing mention of who I am and what my career entails, but for the most part they are highlighting their store and wares.

Since retiring I have given up my own site, Willy Whitten Sculpture Design’, but even when that was up, it wasn’t the first one on a browser page.

What I am saying here is that it is best to go with the flow, and try not to get too upset over things which you have little control.

Willy, I looked at your art. It’s great. I disagree with what you wrote above but I don’t want to go back and forth on it with you here. We both spoke our piece to each other on this subject and let’s just leave it at that for now, please. Gratitude and respect to you, sir.

I’ve had some “interesting’ replies from Don Dahler, the TV “reporter’ who was in Manhattan on 9/11.
The usual “foil hat” pud strokes…he said don’t email him again, but then came back with more fizzy flatulence.
So I wrote back again…I said the deal was, I would not write again, but he had to can his BS as well.
So this chatty cathy dahl calls himself an “Investigative Journalist”…Lol

Didn’t we have these guys figured? The Public Relations Regime and it’s happy face talking heads….whatta circus.

One of those is that it is a big mistake to attempt to come to a ‘consensus’, or some “official general agreement” as “The Truth Movement”.

Until there is an investigation with the subpoena power behind it, to force information from the intransigent ‘authorities’, there will be, and it is right that there should be many counter opinions in a case as vast and complex as 9/11.

Yea it may be so, that there is indeed sufficient evidence to say in complete confidence that the event was a systemic false flag PSYOP. And it is true that there are the strongest proven points to rely on as per that assertion. Never the less, there is the interest and the curiosity of us researchers ourselves – and each of us has the right to our own interpretations and opinions as to what is and is not profitable evidence and reasoning.

I have read some compelling scientific arguments for and against various propositions, I have gone up and down with several aspects and changed my views on many lines during the ten plus years of my involvement with this.

There is a strong core faction of the movement that is attempting to dampen the discussion of the Pentagon aspect. Why? To reach a consensus…and for what? Hopes for another official investigation? Or to sway the majority opinion in this nation? Both these ideas are as fantastical as the official government story is. The majority are brain dead automatons, and the so-called ‘government’ has moved on to absolutism in ‘full spectrum dominance’ – this tyranny isn’t going to play house with the 9/11 kids, they are going to put them out of business when the big wankaroo of jackboot despotism is called in during the systemic crash.

I salute all of you who resist this insane regime, who have spoken out against such lunacy as the ‘official’ myth of 9/11 that has set the world on such a path of warmongering terror.

A. Wright said: “…..assessing evidence is not a linear process. You don’t take part of the evidence of an event, come to a conclusion, conclusion 1, and then decide the veracity of all of the other evidence based on that conclusion. You have some evidence from an event and you have a working hypothesis, and you then look at all the other evidence , with the same objectivity that you used to look at this original evidence. It’s a constant process of going back and forth assessing and re-assessing all the evidence, weighing up one thing against another with no evidence immune from re-assessment. It’s not a linear process.”

I agree, it should _not_ be a linear process- however, the fact of the matter is that for most it is and will always be so. It goes along with an inflexible attitude about “irrefutable” conclusions reached to date, and an ego that is unable to accept that conclusions reached to date might still be wrong.

Even if a non-linear approach is used to examine that “evidence”, as you suggest, conclusions reached still mean nothing if the underlying “evidence” itself reviewed is not verifiable as being trustworthy.

Eye-witness testimony, as [even] any experienced cop will tell you [I am not an endorser of state-run policing system, by the way, or even an endorser of the state itself 🙂 ] , is universally regarded as being the most unreliable type of “evidence”.

The fact that there exists totally contradictory 9/11 “eye-witness” testimony should strongly indicate that all of it needs to be entirely discounted, as it is all inherently unreliable , it all cancels itself out ultimately.

Yes, cherry picking alleged “eye-witness” testimony that supports one particular scenario or another , over contradictory “eye-witness” testimony that supports another is surely “take[ing] part of the evidence of an event, come[ing] to a conclusion, conclusion 1, and then decide[ing] the veracity of all of the other evidence based on that conclusion. ” No?

Which makes your March 29th statement :” eyewitness evidence is valid evidence per se”, similarly wrong, as far as I can see.

Eyewitness testimony is inherently unreliable, and should _never_ be used as a primary evidentiary source by a researcher intent on reaching some sort of truth.

I say, disregard _all_ alleged “eyewitness testimony”, regardless of source, and regardless of what that testimony supposedly “proves”.

Which leaves what exactly? [Only 🙂 ] the alleged photographic “evidence” released to date, all in the public domain and freely available on the internet to be examined at your leisure.

Since researchers such as Jack White have demonstrated that many original photo stills from the Pentagon “crash site” have been heavily photoshopped, see :http://www.911studies.com/ , and since many Pentagon stills , regardless of proven photo-shopping or not, show no evidence of damage possible by an airliner, and since, as with flight 175 at WTC2, there appears to be little reason to even assume that an airliner or similar would be able to approach the building on the alleged flight path/angle, at the alleged speed ; and since researchers such as Simon Shack have demonstrated that, just as with the main [WTC] crime scene and the alleged events there, the network videos of the [post “crash”] Pentagon “crash” scene have also been 100% digitally pre-fabricated [ including the footage of the post-“collision” collapse of outer wall of the Pentagon itself], see : http://www.septemberclues.info/ ; that, as is true of WTC complex “attack” itself [and at Shanksville PA] , the evidence supporting any kind of “plane attack” at the Pentagon appears to be flimsy to non-existent at this time.

Witness evidence is considered weak by “most cops” as to MINUTAE. Colours, facial features, time, etc. I don’t see how a large commercial aircraft multiple witnessed and corraborated (some of those witnesses were in positions where they couldn’t PHYSICALLY see the official approach) falls into that category. I guess I’d have read the rest of your nonsense had you pointed out the witnesses that actually contradicted them.

Why don’t you post he same claptrap on the Oklahoma thread? Every witness that contradicted the official lie there was rejected, censored or ignored (and murdered in some cases). Or how about over 500 witnesses to the TWA800? The witnesses in Shankesville who both saw the alleged aircraft flying from the wrong OCT path or AFTER the alleged crash?

As for your claims about video footage. If the footage in question has been doctored, faked, whatever, shouldn’t the ENTIRE footage be treated with suspicion? Shouldn’t it be disregarded as a whole? How can a theory be based on “evidence” that you claim has been “tampered” with? How, for example, can the claims made on the impacts caught on tape “defy Newton’s third law”, that is, that the apparent impact footage is straight up, yet the aircraft seen is an “insertion”? How do you differentiate between what is real and what has been “tampered with”?

And you want to compare on the ground interviews with people within touching distance of an aircraft, all corroborating, with an armchair theory that is flawed for the reasons above (and then some)?

Why the sudden NPT upsurge recently (namely Fetzer’s article at VeteransToday), trying to blur and distort real evidence collected by people already under the cosh from government loyalists and alleged “truthers”?

Eyewitness testimony at the Pentagon on 9/11 and shortly afterwards includes the
following categories of witnesses, presented according to the theory their testimony supports:

1. Witnesses who saw the approach and/or impact of a large plane (measured in scores, 31 to 89 – 100)
2. Witnesses who saw the approach and/or impact of a small plane (about 4)
3. Witnesses who claimed to have seen a north-of CITGO path (about 12, many of whom also claim that plane impact with the Pentagon did occur)
4. Witnesses who claim to have seen a plane fly low over, or away from, the Pentagon (CIT cites 1 questionable witness)
5. Witnesses who inferred bombs or explosives from the sound and/or odor (about 12), and far less if the more reliable tests of odor and observed casualties are applied.
6. Witnesses who inferred a missile from the sound or otherwise (about 6).

~Wyndham
The Pentagon Attack : Problems with Theories Alternative to Large Plane Impact
November 27, 2011

So, Hybridrogue1, am I to understand that you are part of the LIHOP (if that’s what they really are) group that delights in ridiculing and attacking Citizen Investigation Team’s research? Is Victoria Ashley your idea of a solid researcher? And Arabesque is where one goes for Pentagon information? You find them both more believable than David Ray Griffin who has shown just how few of the “impact” witnesses are credible? If so, you disappoint me.

Are you seriously in agreement with Ashley and the rest of her cabal that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon despite the fact that there is no proof of this? Do we use eyewitness accounts from New York to demonstrate that a gravitational collapse took place? Anyone who can look at the photos of the Pentagon (especially the Ingersoll ones) and tell me that this is the scene of a plane crash is very hard to take seriously.

By the way, I have read Ashley’s pompous and vicious hit piece before. I’d like to see what evidence she supplies to back up England’s story, but I’m not interested in suffering through her paper again to find it. Please direct me to those witness accounts if you can.

Glad to hear you’re not LIHOP. I guess I react quickly when I hear people quoting Ashley & co. because I believe their stuff is disinformation. And about your earlier comment, I just missed it, sorry. It’s up now.

Actually I hadn’t read Ashley’s piece, I found the URL in another document with witness accounts.
I read everything I can, and as I read I don’t make quick judgments as I read – I try to pick out ‘information’ and parse it from the ‘opinion’ set in the subtext.

I will make sure to read anything prior to posting links from now on.

I have that piece by Ashley up now and am reading it.

As far as a complete list of Pentagon witnesses, the one in the Arabesque pc. is the most complete that I have found. That is the only reason I posted it, and it has nothing to do with whatever take on all this Arabesque might have.

Again, my view is that there were no hijackings. That re-worked planes, most likely Boeing hull frames and wings, were specially created by the military for this op. Hardened wing edges, perhaps titanium edges reinforced by kavlar – juiced up engines with special fan blades to fly in the thicker ground level atmosphere. All flown by tamper proof remote control. They may have carried ordinance and fired missiles nanoseconds before their impacts.

That is my best guess as far as the aircraft used in the operation.

I haven’t settled on an opinion of the approach to the Pentagon. As far as an airplane hitting it, I am still baffled by the tail and stabilizers not leaving substantial damage or even obvious marks – on top of where the hell they went…??

I agree with you about the non-hijackings. Not sure about the rest of your thesis yet.

I have been watching CIT’s National Security Alert tonight because of Richard Gage’s attack on it and CIT’s journalistic methods. In watching it again, I’m reminded how blown away I was when I first saw it. I dare anyone to tell me the witnesses in the film are wrong about the flight path. And if they’re right about that, then the fallen light poles and Lloyde England’s cab being impaled were staged. And why would the perps stage fallen light poles if the plane was supposed to hit the building? They wouldn’t need the fake evidence; they’d have real evidence.

Do not think that because I am providing the citations you asked for that it means I support the official story – I don’t.

If you want my take on this just go back to my post of, April 4, 2012 at 7:50 pm.

My case rests on these simple rules of evidence:

There are no serial numbers offered by authorities – nor chains of evidence.

Of note:

“The official autopsy report for the deaths at the Pentagon reputedly contains no victim descriptions that include Arab DNA. This >only* raises questions about the presence and identity of any “hijackers.”~Wyndham

*Not so; there has been no public release of chain of custody for the DNA or ANY other forensic evidence in the entire 9/11 case. Taking this ‘evidence’ at face value is NOT ‘scientific’.~ww

“As far as a complete list of Pentagon witnesses, the one in the Arabesque pc. is the most complete that I have found. That is the only reason I posted it, and it has nothing to do with whatever take on all this Arabesque might have.”

I thought that a guy who seems pretty versed on 9/11 would have checked and double checked his “sources” before slapping them down here. Those apparently googled “debunks” are outdated, media quotemined exaggerations, distortions, second and third hand testimonies, including media embellishment and pure fabrication.

What’s funny is that on one hand, another poster here claims that witness testimony is weak, yet another posts links to unverified, vague 9/11 snippets from media whores. Both ignoring the witness evidence I’m talking about.

There have been more developments since then. More NOC witnesses found, not only by CIT, but by those trying to discredit them! And SIX years after they were first discovered, not ONE witness has contradicted the path seen. The path that makes “impact” impossible.

Wyndham heavily quotes Frank Legge’s work. Frank Legge and his cohorts have given up on finding any such witnesses and instead claims that they were all “actually” describing the OCT path! That they were all fooled from every conceivable angle around the Pentagon basin.

If you want to discuss individual witnesses, fair enough, bring them on.

With special regards to Onesliceshort for making things a lot clearer for me:

This brings me full circle to an account I read and had the transcript saved of a televised press conference that Rumsfeld introduced, of a Navy audio-visual team that were the first forensic team inside the Pentagon, this was shown on the night of the 11th, or shortly after midnight.

They were showing slides, which weren’t available to see, but which were described in detail.
One of the things that stood out was this: “as you can see, there are no signs of an aircraft, nothing, just blown up offices with equipment and wiring strewn all about.

These officers were all identified by name and rank as they were introduced by Rumsfeld, who only asked a couple questions after some by some other higher ranking as well.
Another thing that struck me reading this, is that there wasn’t the surprise expressed about the lack of airplane by anyone involved. They asked questions about the the degree of damage, and how wide spread, etc, but the missing plane was just ho hummed. Strange.

I had this document in my files on a computer that died in 2008. I was unable to retrieve the document although I was able to save a lot of image files for a substantial price by having the HD taken out and processed at a computer hospital.

Now, we all know of the photographs that showed up soon afterwards. Some people cannot wrap their heads around such total theatrics as can be accomplished by chain of command, and compartmentalization. But proposing this would be difficult and asserting it would be impossible are very different things. It may seem ‘improbable’ from many angles – however, as the saying goes, “what you are left with, after everything is considered must be the truth.” [paraphrasa mahonsa]

I have moved over into the pro-CIT camp after reading Onesliceshort’s very compelling piece last night.

So this is as close to a total ‘conversion’ as I have had in some time. I was just hanging by the witness string that seemed so sewed up – but was in fact another case of spin.

For the record, my piece at the CIT forum was a collection of personal notes and studies of the area in an attempt to “balance out” the testimonies (including the media “quotes”). The same recurring feature was present. Nobody contradicted the NOC witnesses.

The one guy who is claimed to physically contradict it, Lloyd England, denies being where he “should have been”.

Compare his 2005 MSM interview (where he points to the bridge and lightpoles) with his CIT interview in 2008, when he was aware that the witnesses in the area contradicted his story

England was on the FWY just across from the Pentagon driving his cab, as ANYONE who knows anything about this case should know. He didn’t have to “say” where he was, there is adequate photo evidence of him with his cab with a smashed window, and the light pole bent and laying on the pavement in front of the cab.

Have you any idea why 20 years of TSB protocol was ignored for this one event?

Lloyd England is in no way “dim and confused”.
He’s always stuck to his script.

Not saying that the guy is evil but I definitely believe he was duped. Whatever his reason or role that day (he received financial reimbursement even though he kept his old car as a “momento” even though it wasn’t a “write off”), he’s not budging from his story.

I had originally thought that it was an insurance claim that snowballed and took a life of its own, but there’s an image of his car being taken away where the alleged pole damage INSIDE the car can be seen.

The only way of cutting the crap is to have an msm source interview him and ask him whether he was on the bridge or not. See which story he sticks to.

Maybe the same NBC reporter in the first clip? Never gonna happen though (phew says Mr Wright – shills thrive on the slightest thing)

Lloyde was not on the bridge. The photos show a man standing in the grass with a light blue shirt, he seems to be holding a magazine – he is directly in front of the scene with the taxi.
If the taxi was over the bridge this man would have no ground, no grass to be standing on.

A.Wright says:
April 13, 2012 at 1:34 am
“@onesliceshort
In that first interview he says he was not on the bridge.”

The only time he ever suggests that he was on the bridge (first hand) was in the NBC piece in 2005. The first independent interview was in 2006/7 where he claims that he was on “flat ground” and that he wasn’t on the bridge. The second interview in 2008, he places himself even further NOC, “facing the heliport”, but still insisted that a 30ft section of lightpole “speared” his cab.

He’s just following the strategy that’s been in place since the NOC evidence was uncovered. Interweave what people actually saw with contrived “data”, MSM reports and a Cointelpro campaign in effect from 2006.

Perhaps you can clear up this oxymoron in three statements you make as per Lloyd England:

“He’s always stuck to his script.” – “he’s not budging from his story”. – “See which story he sticks to”

Hmm??

ww”

Simple.

He sticks to his story of not being on the bridge when interviewed by NON MSM interviewers.

During his 2005 NBC interview, he points to the bridge.

You’ve taken the third phrase out of context with the other two. My original statement in full was that I would like to see which story he sticks to when faced with the proposition of repeating the same story he’s been regurgitating to CIT (and detractors alike) after the NOC evidence emerged, down the lens of an MSM camera that will be shown to millions.

He has stuck to the same script, bar a few embellishments, since 2006/7.

Then there are two stories he has told. By that token he has not stuck to a script, but has altered it. You are now suspicious of this alteration, although just looking at the photo evidence shows that he was not on the bridge. You may assume something nefarious here, but the likelihood is that Floyd has seen those photo’s as well and it has sharpened a memory that was after all, incurred under a traumatic event.

I am sorry but I don’t see this as something inexplicable to human nature. But I defer to you the right to hold whatever opinions you wish.

No, he actually lets slip during the second CIT interview that “a friend” and neighbour of his was “up on the bridge” taking photos. CIT got a hold of one of the photos and the cab was indeed on the bridge.

CIT drove him in person up the same road and he placed himself a good thousand feet north of the bridge. He even insinuates that the images of his cab on the bridge are somehow mistaken.

YET, in his 2005 interview with NBC, he’s pretty specific as to where he claims his cab was “struck” by a lightpole.

He claims that he was on the scene until the first evacuation (10:15am)

It’s nothing to do with “shock” or “dimwittedness”. The guy changed his story because he was the only one who was supporting the official path. The only one.

Nice exchange to see between you and OSS, certainly one for the bookmarks. Some people, like yourself at the beginning of your exchange, do innocently but misguidedly think that Arabesque’s, Hoffman’s and Ashley’s Pentagon URLs represent solid research in general and in particular prove the impact and the official flight path. But when you took the time (something most people don’t have much of) to carefully examine their methods, by way of OSS, you realized how it all fell apart. Incidentally, at 911blogger, it was when a bunch of us (including OSS) were rebutting moderator Loose Nuke in the comments, much the way OSS rebuts Arabesque and Ashley in the links he provided you. We were defeating the flimsy cases he was making in his posts and POOF! we were gone. I guess they’re just too afraid that free and open exchange of information and analyses will lead to “conversions” such as has taken place with you in this thread.

As for Kevin Ryan: 9/11 truth blogger Keenan did a good write up awhile back (disclaimer: wtcdemo and gretavo are dubious, but this essay by keenan is on the money):

After exposing his true LIHOP colors in his series of articles on “Demolition Access to the WTC” in which he hilariously concludes that “All roads lead to Saudi Arabia” concerning who rigged the WTC with explosives, Kevin Ryan in his latest screed on 911Bogger has now become full partners with the Fake Wing of 9/11 Truth who insist that the question of “What Hit the Pentagon?” is a “useless question” that is designed to “hijack the investigation into 9/11 truth”.

Despite the fact that most of the 9/11 Truth Movement’s most prominent researchers and leaders, such as David Ray Griffin, Peter Dale Scott, Richard Gage, Dwain Deets, Envar Masud, Kevin Barrett, Barry Zwicker, Dave McGowan, AK Dewdney, CIT, P4T, Aidan Monaghan, and others not only believe the question, “what Hit the Pentagon”, is important and useful for uncovering the full truth of 9/11, but also believe that there are good reasons to doubt the OCT of AA77 having crashed at the Pentagon, along with the vast majority of 9/11 truthers, Kevin Ryan has seen fit to dismiss off all of these people and accuse them of purposely disrupting the truth movement. His conclusion is that this “what hit the Pentagon” question “is a minor and nearly useless issue that is used by intentional disruptors and official story promoters as they work to keep the truth from being exposed.”

So, to summarize Kevin Ryan’s 9/11 Truth views:

1) Demolition of the WTC towers was perpetrated by Al Qeada, Saudi Arabia, and the Bush family

2) AA77 really DID crash at the Pentagon, and only disrupters would question this

3) Only anti-semites and disruptors would “distract” the movement towards evidence of Israeli involvement in 9/11

Can you spell L – I – H – O – P ?
As far as I’m concerned, Kevin Ryan has now completed the deliberate step by step controlled demolition of his credibility capital and his credibility as a 9/11 truth advocate/researcher is now completely bankrupted.

“3) Only anti-semites and disruptors would “distract” the movement towards evidence of Israeli involvement in 9/1”

I know there are a lot of people who are conditioned to be over sensitive to the charge of “antisemitism”. As a long time researcher into the overall Zionist agenda – what is often referred to as The New World Order [a reversion to the oldest type of world order, ie; feudalism] I have had to meet that charge head-on personally for quite a few years.

It is indeed a complex web, with a power behind it that has deep psychological sway over most of the ‘western world’. At this late date, near the fruition of this agenda, I have lost patience with those who don’t have the guts to face this menace to civilization; who adopt the delusions manifest in the Public Relations Regime.

What is especially curious about Ryan is that he has traced the heavyweights behind 9/11 all the way to this cabal, and doesn’t recognize for himself what he has revealed…OR, perhaps has been ‘compromised’ because of it. I cannot ‘make charges’ in any specific manner as to this, the complexities of individual psychologies prevent general assumptions. But this may explain the weird outlook he has adopted. That is all I can call it at this point – weird.

It bugs the crap out of me that because a finger is rightly pointed at an illegal, violent, racist, nuclear state such as Israel, the antisemite card is waved about. An admitted Mossad cell was witnessed (and later arrested and released) within minutes of the first impact. Celebrating.

Anybody who hadn’t actially seen the aircraft impact would have had no idea of what had happened.
So why were they actually celebrating an explosion?

I passed on the following URL to Frank Legge by email. I asked for his comments. I haven’t heard back yet.

I also suggested he try to get some qualified aeronautical engineers and pilots experienced with the Boeings to review his and Stutt’s work.

I don’t know, but I may be starting to piss him off…I don’t mean too. We have gotten on okay so far.
He did get a bit pissy when I suggested that one of the shots supposedly of the interior of the Pentagon looked like it was shot in an old barn…{grin}…and the “shredded airplane” looked like nice shiny aluminum cans as far as color. I would have thought it would be scorched…hmmm…

I have moved over into the pro-CIT camp after reading Onesliceshort’s very compelling piece last night. So this is as close to a total ‘conversion’ as I have had in some time.

Kudos for having the moxie to be able change your mind based on evidence and compelling analysis. In your mind (mine as well), the Pentagon strike takes on more of a tint of a Hollywood production. “Rather than having a real plane hit the Pentagon, let’s just have the military-corporate media say that it did. We’ll have a real plane buzz the Pentagon and find some other way of inflicting damage on those pesky investigators in the Office of Naval Intelligence to get them to shut up about the missing $2.3 trillion.”

[M]y view is that there were no hijackings. That re-worked planes, most likely Boeing hull frames and wings, were specially created by the military for this op. Hardened wing edges, perhaps titanium edges reinforced by kavlar – juiced up engines with special fan blades to fly in the thicker ground level atmosphere. All flown by tamper proof remote control. They may have carried ordinance and fired missiles nanoseconds before their impacts. That is my best guess as far as the aircraft used in the operation.

Is there anything from the above statement that you want to savage and keep in play (and/or maybe apply to WTC)?

Much of the Pentagon damage suggests a missile strike. The issue for me is that flying missiles are both visible and audible, and to my knowledge there are no witnesses to missiles flying parallel courses with a plane. My limited research into missiles depicts them with a tell-tale rocket (or jet) exhaust trail. To allow the missile to generate the appropriate thrust to get up to “ramming speed” with enough manueverability to get to the target that isn’t on the plane’s flight path, it would have to be launched “seconds” sooner and therefore be visible for several hundred feet (or more) flying a parallel path.

This is why I floated the idea of the missile really being in the construction trailer than allegedly housed a generator.

For that matter, though, the Pentagon is allegedly ringed with all sorts of defense mechanisms. Reason suggests that one could conceivably be reprogrammed and targeted at the Pentagon. Of course, its activation would be noticed, as would the empty silo. The construction trailer seems like a better option. And we have all of those animations of a plane hitting the Pentagon to thank for calling attention to that trailer to explain how it got clipped by the plane and moved from a parallel or perpendicular parking position to one that is askew and in near alignment with the damage path.

As for re-applying those “hardened aircraft” to the towers? Well, this is what debunkers of no-planes (like the very same Frank Legge) try to do in order to explain manueverability (& speed) at low altitude and heavy air exceeding the capabilities of the alleged aircraft. Also, to explain the lack of crash physics and the wing-tip to wing-tip cartoon outline of the plane on the buildings.

Seems like such a waste to harden a plane just so it can be destroyed (although much of the military’s arsenal of bombs and missiles suggests a use-it-once-and-be-gone mentality). The real waste is that pixels on the telly and military-corporate media complicity can do a much more effective job of telling the masses what they saw and what they didn’t see. And they were going to have to reach into this psyops hypno-bag extensively anyway.

Reminds me of Star Trek and how transporters came into being. I understand that the makers of the show didn’t want to waste precious minutes of each and every show with the riggamarole of launching, flying, & landing shuttles, so they dreamed up transporters to get the crew instantly where they needed to be on the planet. Once explained and demonstrated a few times, the audience bought it. Problem solved.

Not that everything on 9/11 had to be the same modus operandus, but two-out-of-four Pennsylvania and the Pentagon scream of “no plane crashes.” The remaining two at the towers have similar issues. Of all the bunk we’ve experienced with Sgt. Shack, no-planes might be the kernel of truth that his circus wants to distract us from.

“Earlier, you had made the following statement HybridRogue1 on April 11, 2012 at 10:24 pm”

I believe you meant ‘salvage’ – yes, I still hold that whole paragraph as my opinion.

I disagree with your missile analysis. If the missile was fired from the trailer, it would have blown the trailer back on launch. You have surely seen the tie-downs necessary for launching tubes.

As far as a missile launched from a plane already traveling 400 plus MPH, it would need no “ramp up time”, the missile is already traveling the same speed as the aircraft. It is the explosive tip that is what counts in this scenario at any rate.

Consider the time it took the aircraft to cross the lawn was a split second – this idea that the witnesses would have noticed anything like a missile launch in that split second is stretching observational abilities.

“Seems like such a waste to harden a plane just so it can be destroyed (although much of the military’s arsenal of bombs and missiles suggests a use-it-once-and-be-gone mentality).”

Yes, you already answered your own question here.

Given some time for reflection let me say that I find the witness info given by Onesliceshort very compelling, but I may have been too enthusiastic in claiming to be so firmly ‘in camp’. I am persuaded as per feasibility at this point. I don’t like joining camps as a general rule, so my wording was a bit hasty. This is not to say that I reject the CIT position, but I am still mulling over issues as information comes available. I will not be held to anyone’s specific script. I will chose what I find reasonable and reject anything else.

One thing I do not like at all is all the hard-line factions that have developed around these 9/11 questions.

It seems to me that seeking consensus is like pulling the pin on a fragmentation grenade. Consensus is always transitory, and perhaps illusionary in toto.

Since you essentially suspected me of telling a bold faced lie based upon the fact that you performed a web search and couldn’t find the quote “All roads lead to Saudi Arabia” that I had attributed to Kevin Ryan, I feel I should respond and clarify for you where I sourced the quotes and opinions I attributed to Kevin Ryan in my article on wtcdemolition.com/blog that was referenced here (http://www.wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/3017)

First of all, the quote “All roads lead to Saudi Arabia” was not a direct quote, but a paraphrase of Kevin Ryan’s opinion on who were the most likely conspirators who could have planted explosives in the WTC towers. I should have made it clear that I was paraphrasing and not direct quoting, my bad. I had no intention, however, of misrepresenting Kevin Ryan and I don’t believe I did misrepresent him. I maintain that it was an accurate paraphrase based on Kevin Ryan’s published articles and words spoken in public up to that point in time.

This article of mine referred to above was written in 2010, after Kevin Ryan had finished submitting a 4 part research series entitled “Demolition Access to the WTC Towers; Part One – Tenants; Part Two – Security; Part Three – Convergence; Part Four – Cleanup”. It was clear to me and many others at that point in time that, based on his conclusions in that series of articles, that Kevin Ryan seemed to have a bias or double standard in what he deemed important and relevant in the way he pursued potential leads. It was clear after reading those articles that Kevin Ryan believed that Al Queda and Saudi Arabia were primary suspects in gaining access for planting explosives via connections to companies and entities who had involvement with either security, tenancy, or cleanup of the WTC towers, along with the Bush family/CIA as probable accomplices or enablers.

The problem is that when Kevin Ryan attempted to support his “all roads lead to Saudi Arabia” conclusion, he used links that were extremely weak and tenuous, and absurdly irrelevant, while completely ignoring the much more significant and relevant links to Israel/Mossad/Zionists in terms of ownership of the WTC complex and the ownership and control of Kroll Associates, which was the primary security firm at the WTC complex at the time of 9/11. In the 4th part of his series of articles mentioned above, this is the extent of his “evidence” he used to support his conclusion:

The companies that designed and built the security systems for the WTC complex had strong connections to Saudi Arabia too. For example, Kroll Associates board member Raymond Mabus was the US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, and all four of the WTC security implementation companies had completed major projects in Saudi Arabia.
[…]
Former FBI director Louis Freeh, whose agency investigated al Qaeda-attributed terrorism from 1993 to 2001, is now the personal attorney for Saudi ambassador “Bandar Bush.” 115 The Saudi government has been sued by thousands of 9/11 victim’s family members due to the suspicion that Saudi Arabia helped to finance al Qaeda. 116 The Saudis hired the law firm of Bush Administration insider James Baker to defend them in that lawsuit.

In response to these peoples’ critiques of Kevin Ryan’s apparent biased approach in which he seemed to be totally blind to connections leading to Mossad/Israel, he has been consistently dismissive and critical of those in the truth movement who feel that the evidence leads more in the direction of Israel/Mossad. In radio interviews and blog comments, he has tended to insinuate that it is those who want to push the Israel/Mossad angle who have a bias and are being disruptive. I don’t have any specific quotes from those radio interviews I recall in which he expressed these opinions. It would take some non-trivial amount of time for me to track down many of these statements I heard him make on radio interviews and blog comments on the subject. But I do have one quote from a blogger.com comment he made for dismissing the Israeli/Mossad angle:

I am now aware of the fact that Kevin Ryan has backed away from his “all roads lead to Saudi Arabia” conclusion regarding demolition access to the WTC, and he has taken a strong stance against islamophobia and has recently made statements to the effect that “muslims didn’t do it”. I am also pretty sure that at least part of the reason for this shift is in response to the criticism he has received on the issue over the last couple of years. However, he still seems to have an inability to connect the dots to the overwhelming evidence of Israeli/Mossad complicity.

I have read those articles by Ryan as well [“Demolition Access to the WTC Towers; Part One – Tenants; Part Two – Security; Part Three – Convergence; Part Four – Cleanup”.]

I am also aware of the vast amount of evidence for Mossad involvement. But it is not an either or situation we are dealing with here. Saudi Arabia does factor in to this is a major way as well as the United Emirates, Pakistan and British Intel, etc.

The Bush neocon connections with Saudi’s is not a trivial matter, as the Mossad connection is not. Obviously entrenched domestic organized crime has a large role in the event, and it’s interlocking directorates with ‘government’.

It is good you have learned the difference from characterizing someones arguments and using quotation marks in an illicit manner. “My bad”…that phrase reminds me of “whatever”…it doesn’t sound sincere to me…and that is MY characterization of a direct quote by you.

If you only go by Ryan’s biased and faulty research and analysis, then you may believe that “it is not an either or situation” and that “Saudi Arabia does factor in to this in a major way” (UAE – you can’t be serious). On the contrary, as my articles I’ve written on this matter show, along with other information widely available in the public domain on these issues, there is absolutely NO equivalency between the amount of evidence indicating complicity on the part of Mossad in 9/11 and that indicating Saudi Arabia complicity. Not even remotely equivalent. That was a major point of mine that I guess you completely missed. If you had read my articles that were referenced here about this, you would be familiar with the specifics.

Unless you are a believer in the OCT of the fake hijacker story, which you’ve already indicated you are very skeptical of, all you have on the one hand is a list of 19 Arab patsies including 15 of Saudi Arabian nationality who appear to have been made up from a hodge podge of stolen/lost passports along with a few possible CIA/Mossad intelligence agency assets who were set up to take the blame but were never on any planes. Oh, and there was someone on the board of directors at Kroll who was an Ambassador to Saudi Arabia. BFD! Board of Directors means diddly-squat compared to the owners and executives of a company. Ambassadors also mean complete diddly-squat in this situation. Oh, and some electronic security equipment companies who had installed some equipment in the WTC under the direction of Kroll had done some contracts in Saudi Arabia in the past as well as in MANY other countries around the world. Unbelievably irrelevant and un-noteworthy so-called connections.

On the other hand, 1) a Mossad-connected company (Kroll) was given PRIMARY DAY TO DAY SECURITY CONTROL of the WTC, 2) ownership of the WTC was passed to 2 prominent Israeli-Americans – Larry Silverstein and Frank Lowry only 6 weeks before 9/11, 3) a Mossad front company (ICTS) was given PRIMARY DAY TO DAY SECURITY CONTROL of US airports, 4) Mossad has a long history of committing false flag attacks against US targets and blaming them on Arabs 5) Hundreds of Mossad agents were rounded up before and on 9/11 and many had failed lie detector tests about their involvement in 9/11, 6) Mossad agents were caught filming and celebrating the WTC attacks and had set up their video camera BEFORE the first plane it, 7) Cui-bono – the attacks were a disaster for the Arab/Muslim world with many Arab countries invaded and occupied and much loss of prestige and influence on the part of Saudi Arabia to influence US policy, while on the other hand for Israel it was an unprecedented bonanza of benefits, as Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu publicly admitted, with the US now conveniently targeting and fighting Israel’s enemies for the foreseeable future in the new War on Terror. These are just a small sampling of the mountain of evidence connecting Israel/Mossad to 9/11.

To even imply that the weight of evidence linking Saudi Arabia to major complicity in 9/11 is even remotely comparable to that linking Mossad is utterly laughable. UAE? British Intelligence? Do these even deserve comment? You make some pretty ridiculous statements here. Next time you might want to provide some evidence to back up such statements if you want people to take you seriously.

I’ve already made it quite clear that I was paraphrasing in an absolutely accurate manner with regard to the “all roads lead to Saudi Arabia” characterization of Ryan’s position. You’re contention that I was being insincere in my admission that I should have been more clear in stating it was a paraphrasing rather than a direct quote, with my use of the “my bad” concession and that I was using quotes in an illicit manner seems a little over the top to me. You seem to be intent on blowing it way out of proportion and accusing me of being insincere without any basis for reasons that are not clear to me.

I have already said that I am well aware of the Zionist situation in the 9/11 attacks.
But frankly I don’t believe you have a firm grasp on the architecture of modern political power, and the deep interlocking directorates of all the proxy states of the Z Empire.

I am not willing to go back and forth with you on this issue.

Just watch your P’s and Q’s and quotation marks.

I think Kevin Ryan is an honest broker. If you want to start calling him “waterboy” as the g-shills do that is your right. BTW I am not saying you have ever used that term, I am just saying that you are characterizing Ryan in the same sinister light. Why was he called this by the shill faction? Because of his concentration on Silverstein’s admission that 7 was pulled. So don’t tell me that he has skipped over any pressure on the matter of the Z-cabal that Silverstein is involved with.

If you seriously think that the Zionist regime in Palestine is the enemy of the Saudi regime, in other than ‘game appearances’, you have a lot to learn about modern sociopolitical reality.

This is much too large a topic to cover adequately in this particular thread.

First of all, I noticed that you again failed to address my arguments specifically, and have not pointed out which pieces of evidence I am wrong about to form my conclusions. Instead, you appear to just have a general dismissal that can more or less be summarized as “dude, you don’t know what you are talking about”, and then offer your apparently much more well thought out theory on the architecture of who really runs the world, which by (your) definition apparently allows you to already know the truth about who was behind 9/11 without having to bother with all the pesky little details, such as evidence.

I rely on verifiable evidence to connect the dots of who planned and executed 9/11. For you, specific pieces of evidence linking specific agencies and groups of people to a crime can apparently be jettisoned in favor of your Unified Theory of who really runs the world at the top level. Problem is, you haven’t provided any way to verify your theory. So when you attempt to school me and say, “But frankly I don’t believe you have a firm grasp on the architecture of modern political power, and the deep interlocking directorates of all the proxy states of the Z Empire,” all I can really say in response is: Gee, ww, I had no idea that I was conversing with someone who has it all figured out already and knows exactly what all of the deep interlocking secrets of power and who plays what role. Let me just throw out everything that I thought I knew up to this point now that I can finally learn from The Genius Know It All himself.

I’m all ears. Please ww, do tell me all you know about what the ultimate truth is. Is the Illumanit for real? What level are they at? Who controls exactly what of everything in the world? Oh, and by the way, do you have any hard evidence for all of this, or am I just supposed to accept it on faith that you’ve figured it all out?

C’mon now WW, have you already moved on from this discussion with me here? I guess you did already warn me that you are “not willing to go back and forth with [me] on this issue”, so I guess your last comment to me was the final word? Although one might wonder if your MO is to suddenly disappear under fire (kind of reminds me of someone else here on this thread you identified with very similar MO). You should understand that leaves a bad impression on a forum such as this. So, stand and deliver. Sound familiar? 🙂

I should also point it that it is a bit self serving and arrogant for you to on the one hand make an argument (Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and British Intelligence were just as complicit in 9/11 as was Mossad) in which the only evidence you gave in support of this is that you “know how the world works” (I’m paraphrasing here, not illicitly quoting you), and then warn me that “I am not willing to go back and forth with you on this issue” and that “This is much too large a topic to cover adequately in this particular thread.”

Sorry, that doesn’t cut it for me. You can’t just make such bald assertions that Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and British Intelligence were majorly involved with 9/11 without backing it up with some pretty good verifiable evidence. At least you can’t expect to be taken seriously if you do so.

This is a discussion forum in which people expect to use evidence-based and science based analysis to prove or disprove claims, and not simply resort to a battle of egos and arrogant “I know more about this subject than you, so that makes me right” type of bullying. If you make a claim, you need to put up or shut up. You don’t get a free pass to bypass these steps and expect people to just bow to your “superior” knowledge and intellect.

Oh, and I’m not totally convinced that you KNOW ALL about how the world works, either. From what I’ve seen you write so far, you still have a lot to learn.

Thanks for taking time out of your busy schedule and playing with us, though. Please, do come back and play some more when you are ready to address facts and evidence, mkay? Oh, and please if you could, just leave the “I already know exactly all about about the deep interlocking directorates of all the proxy states of the Z Empire and exactly how the world works, so I don’t need to discuss the evidence with you” attitude at home. Thank you so much.

“..your apparently much more well thought out theory on the architecture of who really runs the world, which by (your) definition apparently allows you to already know the truth about who was behind 9/11 without having to bother with all the pesky little details, such as evidence.”

Yes and no – there are layers to this, subtle levels of paradigms. And at the deepest level, yes, I have already figured out who runs the world, and nothing of the import of something like 9/11 get’s a go-ahead until it crosses their desk.

As far as the Mossad deep involvement in this, and the interplay between them and the US Zionist factions is something I have studied deeply through the years. I agree with you there, and there is no argument {dude…grin}.
You should have learned something from Ryan’s papers rather than just scanning for dirt. He is not making excuses or covering up the Zionist participation, he is revealing the web of participation between many – what are generally considered, diverse parties. But if one has the larger picture, these parties are only diverse in appearance. And this is why I brought up the architecture of political power. If one does not learn the interlacing matrix of this Zionist program, one is giving short shrift to how deep and powerful it truly is.
I would for an example cite the fact that the House of Saud is not of Arabian ancestry, but are in fact a Hebrew tribe that set up caravan routs into the Arabian lands, grew rich and settled in Arabia. This is one of the reasons that the Arabian form of Islam is so similar to Talmudic law, because it IS Talmudic law under the cover of Islam, ei; a false-flag religion.
Aside from that we should know our history well enough to determine that Laurence of Arabia was British Intelligence and actually wrote the book on guerrilla warfare. The House of Saud became entrenched as a British endorsed and protected entity, and have remained in good standing to the Zionist imperial agenda.

Rather than go into all of this, which has bearing on the 9/11 event, but is more than 2 centuries of historical information to address. I thought it better to leave off our conversation. It is not because of any animus I hold towards you, nor a disinterest in the Israeli connection, it is just that I think I have a good grasp on the depth of their connection, and in fact see it as even deeper than this incident.

We may have an opportunity to discuss more of this later, that would be fine with me. But not here on this thread. I am already jumping between four other posters. Can you give me that break? I promise not to make any more snide remarks.

Thanks for your civil response, though you still haven’t really addressed most of my specific points and still have not given any convincing evidence for your bald assertions that Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and British Intelligence were major accomplices in the planning and orchestrating of 9/11, your veering into theories about ancient history of the origin of the House of Saud notwithstanding.

We can speculate as to the relevancy of ethnic and racial relationships and tribal origins between peoples currently occupying the middle east going back thousands of years before the Zionist movement was even a mere gleam in the eyes of certain powerful and wealthy Jewish elites in the late 1800s, but please forgive me if I am just not convinced that it has even 1/1000th the relevancy of just sticking with the knowable, verifiable facts of the last 100 years. There are at least 2 reasons for this: 1) if you go back far enough in history, you will find that ALL peoples around the world originated from the same race, so we find out everybody’s ancient ancestors were all related at some point in the past. So thousands of years ago the House of Saud may (or may not since I haven’t been able to find any credible sources for this yet) have been a Hebrew Tribe? Sorry, but this is hardly meaningful for our purposes here today tracking down those responsible for 9/11 and for identifying those factions or interest groups who have major influence over US foreign policy TODAY. 2) Assigning guilt to people and organizations/networks for complicity in 9/11 based on alleged connections and relationships that happened thousands or even hundreds of years ago just will not pass muster in any judicial system that I know of, nor will it interest or impress most people who are truly interested in pursuing justice and truth for 9/11 and other recent and current issues and events currently affecting and shaping our world.

Some of your points I’d like to respond to:

“Yes and no – there are layers to this, subtle levels of paradigms. And at the deepest level, yes, I have already figured out who runs the world, and nothing of the import of something like 9/11 get’s a go-ahead until it crosses their desk.”

Ok, can you just give me the short list of the people or families who you allege sign off on EVERYTHING of significance that happens in the world? Names and addresses would be very helpful. You can skip the lengthy discussion of ancient history for now and just name names to save time for now, and we can worry about the rest later, ok?

“You should have learned something from Ryan’s papers rather than just scanning for dirt.”

I completely reject your baseless and inaccurate characterization of the purpose and methodology of my analysis of Ryan’s work. I have made a clear case that Ryan utilized a biased double standard in what leads he chose to pursue regarding who could have had demolition access to the WTC, and gave quite adequate numbers of examples and pieces of evidence that logically supported my conclusion. On the other hand, you have failed to either point out which pieces of evidence or specific parts of my analysis I got wrong, or to have come up with an alternative conclusion that better fits the data and evidence then that which I have presented. Instead, you make bald assertions as to who was responsible for 9/11 based on nothing more solid than your vague theories of who runs the world apparently based mostly on ancient historical relationships between certain ethnic groups and other claims and assertions that you have not supported with any verifiable facts (such as your baseless contention that Islam is a “false flag” religion completely fabricated by those crafty Hebrews way back many hundreds of years ago who apparently totally pulled the wool over Arab eyes and who were planning on pulling it out to create all this apparently fake conflict between Jews and Arabs in the 20th and 21st centuries to create this War on Terror business. Uh huh, right).

“He is not making excuses or covering up the Zionist participation, he is revealing the web of participation between many – what are generally considered, diverse parties.”

Um, no, he is (or ‘was’ to be more accurate, since he has since backed away from this biased stance to some extent) inexplicably and completely ignoring ALL of the obvious and relevant connections to Israel, Mossad, and Zionism while attempting to point the finger at Saudi Arabia based on laughable and irrelevant connections and leads. And when people criticized him for that approach and inquired as to why he ignored those links to Mossad/Israel, he consistently dismissed such concerns. I’ve explained this in detail in my blog articles I wrote back in 2010 on the issue, referenced in this thread. Have you read them yet?

“But if one has the larger picture, these parties are only diverse in appearance. And this is why I brought up the architecture of political power. If one does not learn the interlacing matrix of this Zionist program, one is giving short shrift to how deep and powerful it truly is.”

And yet you refuse to provide any verifiable evidence for any of this and expect me to just accept your analysis that you already know all of the conspirators behind 9/11 based on faith that you have figured out how the world works and the “deep interlocking power relationships going back thousands of years, etc.” And I’ve already explained to you in this thread why that just doesn’t cut it. Do I need to explain it to you again?

If you have convincing evidence that the United Arab Emirates and British Intelligence were co-conspirators in the planning and execution of 9/11 (let’s see if you we can just start with these 2 for now, we’ll deal with Saudi Arabia later), then either present it or stand accused of blowing wind out of your ass and making shit up on this one, ok? This is my last request for you to present evidence for your bald assertions. Where I come from, you are innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the accuser, which is you in this case. You have not presented anything even remotely resembling what people here would consider evidence for this.

“Rather than go into all of this, which has bearing on the 9/11 event, but is more than 2 centuries of historical information to address. I thought it better to leave off our conversation. It is not because of any animus I hold towards you, nor a disinterest in the Israeli connection, it is just that I think I have a good grasp on the depth of their connection, and in fact see it as even deeper than this incident.”

And I may be interested at some point in the future to go more in-depth with you on (your theories and assertions regarding) this ancient history you speak of, but for now I am simply interested in pinning you down on verifiable evidence that most people would be convinced of based on the kinds of verifiable facts that most people in this discussion forum can relate to for proving or providing a preponderance of relevant evidence that points to certain parties IN EXISTENCE TODAY being guilty of, or not guilty of, major complicity in the crime of 9/11. Relevant evidence in this regard certainly does not include anything from over 100 years into the past, for example.

“We may have an opportunity to discuss more of this later, that would be fine with me. But not here on this thread. I am already jumping between four other posters. Can you give me that break? I promise not to make any more snide remarks.”

Ok, fair enough. I also do not wish to veer off into ancient history on this thread right now, and I apologize for my impatience with you earlier in responding to my remarks, though my reference to the “MO to suddenly disappear under fire” was more of a jab at you for accusing someone else on this thread of the same while telling me that you didn’t want to have to go back and forth with me. I’ll give you a break and I also promise to desist making snide remarks to you.

But I will say that I am a stickler for evidence and will continue to be a pesky thorn in your side whenever you make assertions unsupported by verifiable evidence.

Let’s do that again (I wish there was an edit button). Here is how the sentence should read:

We can speculate as to the relevancy of ethnic and racial relationships and tribal origins between peoples currently occupying the middle east going back thousands of years before the Zionist movement was even a mere gleam in the eyes of certain powerful and wealthy Jewish elites in the late 1800s, but please forgive me if I am just not convinced that it has even 1/1000th the relevancy of just sticking with the knowable, verifiable facts of the last 100 years.

Oh, btw, for more on the obvious leads linking Israel/Mossad to demolition access to the WTC to which Kevin Ryan turned a blind eye, please read my article linked above, which also contains links to other references and articles I wrote that expands on Kroll and other key people and entities that controlled access to the WTC that Kevin Ryan did not see fit to include in his research series on the subject.

I have messaged keenan and asked him to explain himself on this one. Thank you for bringing these things to my attention. If Kevin didn’t say those exact words, it was definitely bad form for keenan to use quotation marks. Also inquiring about the anti-semitism charge…

IMO, what he has said about Pentagon researchers is bad enough. He has labeled quite a few brilliant activists and researchers “intentional disruptors” on that one. He also made the Orwellian statement that to seek endorsements for one’s work is a ‘divisive’ act. Well gee, I guess DRG is being divisive when he seeks blurbs of praise for the back covers of his books. By buttressing his inside-job argument by way of using praiseful words from Paul Craig Roberts and Peter Dale Scott, Griffin is pitting progressives [and conservatives] against each other: those who do believe in the inside job theory and those who don’t. Richard Gage is likewise being ‘divisive’ with his petition, pitting A’s and E’s who do believe the inside-job theory against those who don’t. This can only have the effect of causing division within the A and E worlds. All sarcasm aside — Sorry Mr. Ryan, but on this particular issue, you’re full of crap.

Thanks for responding. As I have said elsewhere, I think that EVERYBODY seems to be drawing hard lines and responding to their vested interests…they have invested time, energy and reputations in the work they have done. We now have a freight train load of biases charging full speed ahead.

As I have also stated, most of this seems to stem from an attempt to reach “consensus’, and I have given my opinion to such an idea as a form of delusion. Legge and I spoke this morning about this, and I told him the same thing, ‘consensus’ is always a temporary situation, if even that. I think it is an epistemic fallacy. Communication amongst one another is difficult enough on simple proposals, let alone an issue of such enormous complexity as the 9/11 case.

Señor El Once has in the past accused me of “putting words” into his mouth when I made characterizations as to what I gleaned from the subtext of some of his statements. At the time, I went over the difference of quoting someone falsely and making a characterization of what someone had said based on opinion and interpretation. It IS the difference between lying and giving an opinion, and important difference, one we should all take care to grasp.

I am familiar with intimately Kevin Ryans work, having read most everything he has written for the last ten years. I can assure you of one thing for certain, he is not “Islamophobic”. On his current blog one can read a long essay on the issue of those who buy into that racist mentality.

He is aghast, as many of us are as to what has happened to the Middle East on the excuse of the bogus “war on terror”. This is a compelling and heartfelt article that I think anyone who doubts Kevin’s sincerity had better read before nailing him to a cross.

If LIHOP means “Let It Happen On Purpose” {and we know it does}
And it MIHOP is “Made It Happen On Purpose” [oh yea yea..}

Then how can those who claim that the towers were destroyed by explosive demolition be accused of being in the LIHOP camp, regardless of their views on the Pentagon?

It may piss various parties off to face disagreement with their analysis of the Pentagon, and we see this happening today. But the fact remains if one is convinced that the towers were blown up, then it stands to reason that they think it was “made to happen”.

Now all of this bickering over various hypothesis is interesting as an intellectual exercise, but it does not trump the fact that we are all looking for a truth that we know is hidden in the bowels of the national security state.

I think it can become ludicrous to the point of dementia to stand so rigid over our own piece of turf on minutia that we begin calling those who disagree with us the enemy, when it detracts from focusing on the real enemy; the national security state.

This may sound similar to the “Consensus Faction”, but I am not asking for consensus, I don’t think it matters, I don’t thing it is possible. All I am asking for is some tolerance, of other’s opinions. But I must make this caveat, as I am as guilty as anyone else on this idea of tolerance. I draw the line on those who buy the completely obvious lie that is the official story. And since A. Wright is here among us, he knows from personal experience that I have such an intolerance. And for that I offer no excuses nor apologies.

Take Frank Legge for example. He claims (or claimed) that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition. He bases this both on physics and the rejection of the NIST fairy tale. Now you’d have to ask him yourself, but one of those who “helped” him with his Pentagon “paper” touts the OCT line on hijackers actually carrying out the attacks (going so far as to say that Hani Hanjur was a “good pilot”..)

So, here we have somebody who allegedly rejects the official narrative in Manhattan. That he allegedly believes that mass murder was committed by the powers that be.
On the other hand, he fully accepts drip fed, highly contradictory and flawed “data” from the very same people who are meant to have dropped 2 million tons of debris on their own citizens.

He is actually less than “LIHOP” regarding the Pentagon as he is twisting and rejecting the only independent evidence available to us. He’s more government loyalist IMHO.

There don’t need to be “lines in the sand”. Researchers should stick to their areas. I recently linked to and used information supplied by people who would view me as pondscum to defend the evidence of controlled demolition on another forum.these same people point to obvious disinfo and the OCT when discussing the Pentagon. Why?

And easily proven lies and distortions that have been the mainstay of the “NOC detractor argument” show just who is trying to make this a “divisive issue”.

“Then how can those who claim that the towers were destroyed by explosive demolition be accused of being in the LIHOP camp, regardless of their views on the Pentagon?”

Well, maybe LIHOP isn’t the right term, but there are those in the movement who support controlled demolition, but then defend virtually every other aspect of the official story (physical evidence wise): real hijackers, real phone calls, flight 77 really did crash at the Pentagon, flight 93 really did crash in Shanksville… and they’re very aggressive in promoting these points.

I also have been re-evaluating my position on Ryan as his latest essay firmly shows he’s not Islamophobic.

In my experience I have encountered few that are accepting of the towers destruction as destructive demolition, but hold most of the rest of the official story as true. I am sure they are out there, but I haven’t run into any to speak of in my web travels. There is such a great diversity in ways of thinking that anything is possible as far as how personal views are constructed.

As we both know there is very effective campaigning by the Susteinian school, some of it can be very subtle, I am sure. I don’t worry about that so much. I think standing to reason as opposed to “using reason” will always turn out the fakers. Those who use clever rhetoric and ‘plausible reasoning’ can be seen through with enough experience.

I think we have a fair example of this here with Mr. Wright. He can use reason satisfactorily, in the same way a man might use a loose woman. But when it comes to standing to reason he sees her {Reason} as a whore that is only for his pleasure. But Wright is a lightweight in this regard…well maybe they all are, even Sunstein himself is pretty transparent.

“I am sure they are out there, but I haven’t run into any to speak of in my web travels.”

I’m speaking of Jim Hoffman and wife Victoria Ashley (911research.net and 911review.com), 911blogger moderator Erik “Loose Nuke” Larson, and Jon Gold, and a few others who support this limited hangout of inquiry.

Of course I have read quite a bit of Hoffman. Only glanced at a long one by Victoria. I was mainly into Hoffman’s tower stuff – I was taken back by some of his Pentagon stuff. But really haven’t looked back at it in awhile.

I do remember a video of a slide-show presentation just awhile back, I watched about five minutes of it and flipped it off. But I don’t recall what it was about it that caught me wrong, or even if it was about the Pentagon.

In my opinion most of the Pentagon issue is based on circumstantial evidence, and all sides only have this. Taking an absolutist position from any of this has to be an act of faith, and a leap of reason, because there remains too much conflicting evidence. I think leaning one way or another is well and good, but anything further begins to take on the “True Believer Syndrome”.
I have seen this attitude from all sides on the Pentagon issue. But I see issues with all of the theories, primarily based on the lack of real substantiated evidence from any direction.

Pardon my caution, but I don’t see a single smoking gun in the whole mix.

Hybridrogue1 wrote: “In my opinion most of the Pentagon issue is based on circumstantial evidence, and all sides only have this. Taking an absolutist position from any of this has to be an act of faith, and a leap of reason, because there remains too much conflicting evidence. I think leaning one way or another is well and good, but anything further begins to take on the “True Believer Syndrome”.
I have seen this attitude from all sides on the Pentagon issue. But I see issues with all of the theories, primarily based on the lack of real substantiated evidence from any direction.
Pardon my caution, but I don’t see a single smoking gun in the whole mix.”

Smoking gun in what sense? We don’t need a smoking gun because they have not come close to proving their case. Keep in mind that it is the official story believers who have to prove their claims. No one has to present an alternate theory. We as truthers have to show that the official story can’t be true. This has been done many times over.

The official story states:

• Flight 77 was hijacked, flown to Ohio, and then turned around and was flown back to Washington by hijacker Hani Hanjour who had been denied rental of a Cessna the month before.
• After an extremely difficult (if not impossible) 330-degree spiral descent, the plan flew in a straight line over Columbia Pike, knocked over five light poles, one of which impaled itself in the windshield of Lloyde England’s cab (leaving not a scratch on the hood).
• It hit on the section that had recently been renovated where relatively few people were working.
• The plane crashed into the building on the ground floor with the engines not touching the ground. No major pieces broke off the plane as it entered the building. There was no sign of the impact of the wings or tail section. And yet, three rings in, there was a round hole that was made by the nose of the plane. Or the landing gear. Or something.
• April Gallop and others exited the building through the “hole” made by the plane even though she saw no plane wreckage, jet fuel, or bodies.

You get the idea. What’s wrong with all of this?

• There’s no proof the plane was actually hijacked.
• There’s no proof that any of the alleged hijackers ever boarded the plane.
• There’s no proof that the aircraft that flew east towards the Pentagon was Flight 77.
• More than a dozen very credible witnesses who were in a position to see the plane and the Citgo gas station stated convincingly that the plane flew to the north side of the station. This is totally inconsistent with the damage to the light poles and the damage pattern in the building. This means the light pole evidence was staged.
• There is no sign of an airplane having crashed, as confirmed by several reporters on the scene (who later changed their stories).
• The Flight Data Recorder has been shown to be fake and planted at the scene (Pilots for 9/11 Truth explain this). This proves inside job and that Flight 77 didn’t really crash there. The FDR is found to show that the altitude was too high for the plane to have hit the building anyway. Again, no plane crash. The FDR also showed that the door to the cockpit never opened.
• Pilots have also published information showing the Flight 77 was still airborne after the alleged crash.
• The government has withheld all videos that could establish that a plane did crash.

There’s lots more, but that’s the general idea. To suggest that the two cases have equivalent validity is false. The “impact” theory has no basis. The plane didn’t crash. Where did it go? I don’t know.

The Pentagon “pro-planers” contend that we can’t prove a plane didn’t hit. But I think we can. Anyway, they’re the ones who have to prove it did. The fact that they don’t see this makes me wonder about them.

“Take Frank Legge for example. He claims (or claimed) that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition. He bases this both on physics and the rejection of the NIST fairy tale. Now you’d have to ask him yourself, but one of those who “helped” him with his Pentagon “paper” touts the OCT line on hijackers actually carrying out the attacks (going so far as to say that Hani Hanjour was a “good pilot”..)”

If you would be specific as to who “tauts” the OCT line on hijackers. And secondly, is there anything beyond the Hani Hajour remark to understand your deconstruction of what was said?

I am not asking him any vague questions, nor am I going to seek out a citation that you can’t properly make. This is not out of any hostility, it is a courtesy to Legge, and it’s not my task to refine your questions.

Sorry for the confusion. A poster called “Snowcrash” aka (allegedly) Michel de Boer had a hand with Legge’s disinformation piece. He cites the OCT on the alleged hijackers. I’m not sure what Legge’s public stance is on this but this guy Snowcrash and his comments can be found at 911Blogger and TruthAction.org.

Notwithstanding the comments about this person, as for the second part of that post, do you see the major contradictions in Legge’s approach to Manhattan and the Pentagon?

How he can accept unquestionably the “evidence” supplied by the very same people he accuses of dropping 2 million tons of debris on their own citizens.

I don’t have any idea of what Legge’s take is on “Snowcrash”. Whether he is the same person as Legge wrote a paper needs to be more than “alleged” to even consider anything about it.

As Legge has already cited the problems with the hijacker story, and continues to make the points of the lack of veracity of the hijacker tale, I don’t see why this continues to be one of your bones of contention with him.

You also don’t seem to grasp how much of the NIST Report is actually used – against itself, as far as internal contradictions to make the case against it. The researchers who have done the major debunking work on the work of NIST didn’t simply toss it in the fireplace and disregard it.

So claiming that the approach to the Pentagon is a counter approach to that process is a mistake of your own impressions.

Now, I am not Legge, and I don’t have to make excuses for him on all of these points, especially as I have explained that I think ALL parties are coming to premature conclusions, and I have made this case to him as well.

I will repeat, yet again. I don’t think there is enough evidence to say one way or the other on the actual physical event at the Pentagon, and my ‘however’ is the same as before as to the bottom line – There Is No Forensic Evidence of Chain of Possession – for ANY of the Assumed Forensic Evidence offered by the authorities.

What this means should be as clear as a spring lake:

I reject all of these items as material to the case, the alleged FDR, the alleged official download of that FDR, or any other item said to be part of any of the alleged planes, as NONE have been positively ID’d.

You should understand, this squats on Mr. Legge’s parade just as thoroughly as it does anyone elses.

And he doesn’t like that any more than anyone else either. If I stand alone here on this ground, so be it.

It is clear as water when reading the 911Blogger and TruthAction.org forums over the last couple of years that Legge and Mr. Michiel de Boer, aka 911blogger’s “Snowcrash” have worked closely together on “research” and are in complete agreement with each other on the tenability of the Hani Hanjour AA77 myth. The Legge/Chandler paper cites, as a legitimate Pentagon authority (yea, I know, cracks me up) drum roll please…911blogger’s “Snowcrash” (commence rolling eyes). What has this 911blogger disinformation darling said about the piloting of AA77?

“I am not convinced Hanjour could not have flown AA 77 into the Pentagon; particularly because I think the maneuvering of AA 77 has often been inappropriately described as incredibly skilled. Rather, I would describe the 757?s movements as hazardous and erratic. At this stage, I would await positive evidence of an alternative: e.g. direct evidence for remote control or control by a different pilot. I am still open to the possibility though, and I see this issue as distinct from the question of whether a plane hit.”
(http://911blogger.com/news/2011-07-12/911-hijackers-amateur-aviators-who-became-super-pilots-september-11#comment-251874)

Thanks for digging those links out mate. I’m restricted at the minute with an iPad.
If you google truthaction and kevin ryan you’ll find 2 interesting reads at truthaction and screwloosechange. They’re playing “LIHOP roulette”. Who can prove themselves less “truthy”.
Dickheads.

“No, he actually lets slip during the second CIT interview that “a friend” and neighbour of his was “up on the bridge” taking photos. CIT got a hold of one of the photos and the cab was indeed on the bridge.”~Onsliceshort

Well I have numerous pics that show the cab directly in front of a grassy area beyond the guard rail. It is crystal clear from those photos that the cab was not on the bridge from those shots.
So now we have one photo that gives the appearance of the cab on the bridge…taken by “a friend”.

It may be a strange question to you Onsliceshort, but to myself, when the preponderance of counter evidence disputes a single item of evidence, it seems only natural to question if there isn’t a misinterpretation of that single item.

So why do you think this one picture is the ONE? As far as I recall I saw some of the very same photos I am speaking to on either the CIT site or as a link from there…ones the retired Navy photographer took. Perhaps you know the ones I mean. I’m pretty sure they are on the CIT site with commentary by one of the founders there. There are three shots of the man in the light blue shirt, who is walking in the grass beyond the barrier and the road, the commentary insinuates he is “an agent”…do you recall those shots?

“EVERY image taken of the cab shows it to be on the bridge.
The Ingersol shots also show the cab on the bridge (the foreshortening might be confusing you in some).”

I totally disagree with your observations concerning these shots, including the Ingersol shots.
I am intimately familiar with foreshortening which would have more to do with the image as per the alignment with the Pentagon, a very little as far as the angular moment from the side of the road to the cab.

Please rephrase this, I do not have any idea what you are saying here:

“What, such as corroborative witness testimony and a complete lack of testimony to counter the NOC path weighed against this one person! Lloyd England? Who claims he wasn’t there?”

What is England’s place in the NOC debate? Other than the pole through his windshield, how does his testimony weigh on the debate – other than with a northern approach the poles shouldn’t have been clipped?

I gather from what you ‘seem’ to be saying here; is that there is NO counter testimony to the North side approach. This is spittoon juice.

What are the names of the witnesses who witnessed the flyover of the plane?

“EVERY image taken of the cab shows it to be on the bridge.
The Ingersol shots also show the cab on the bridge (the foreshortening might be confusing you in some).”

I totally disagree with your observations concerning these shots, including the Ingersol shots.
I am intimately familiar with foreshortening which would have more to do with the image as per the alignment with the Pentagon, a very little as far as the angular moment from the side of the road to the cab.”

Images from various sources showing Lloyd England’s cab on the bridge:

Bridge on cab sw corner of pentagon

Used in Massaoui trial (the original reason for the NBC interview)

NBC interview

Lloyd pointing to the bridge in the NBC interview, 2005

The interview area

1. His cab was photographed from multiple angles and multiple sources on the bridge.
Please compare these images to the image(s) where you believe the cab isn’t on the bridge and show the results?

2. He specifically points to the bridge in the NBC interview in 2005. Before the NOC evidence is uncovered. The NBC interview came about because of the Massaoui trial. The image linked to earlier was used in an official capacity against Massaoui and in effect the entire Pentagon OCT.

3. He denies being on the bridge. He claims that he was there for up to 40 minutes.

4. Nobody saw the event (pole spearing cab, pole in cab, removal of pole) even though there were various witnesses on record in the same area on both lanes.

5. The NOC witnesses (plus several newly discovered) place the aircraft entry point on to Route 27 around the other overhead traffic sign

6. The physics of the pole through screen itself involves 9/11 “magic”.

Oneslide, I’ve seen an image clearly showing the cab south of the bridge, I’ve also explained to you that telephoto compression make the cab look like it’s very close to the stone wall, but it’s not. You’re still laboring under the same misimpressions you had years ago.

I have made it explicit too many times over now that I reason against the official story on all the terms you just set forth.

And to say it one more time, I agree that it is the onus of the ‘government’ to prove their case, and this has not been close to having been done.

Now, the accumulative evidence in all; disputes the official story in countless ways. But there is of yet still no definitive evidence of what actually happened at the Pentagon. The controversy rages because of this central point.

So what are the witness names who saw the plane flyover the Pentagon?

Let’s face it the two Pentagon cops were convinced the plane they saw hit the Pentagon. So you are now taking half of their testimony and disregarding the other half.

Now I am not going to make up any of my own excuses as to why one half or the other is the correct one with these officers. I am just pointing out the totality of their testimony. They have insisted on this point countless times since the CIT video was released: they think the plane hit the Pentagon.

As is with human nature, the totality of the eyewitness testimony of the Pentagon strike is a baffling montage of contradictions. This gives all sides the opportunity to pick and choose their flavors.

You will note that even in Onesliceshorts excellent spread of testimonies and witness positions many of these simply prove that the witness was too far away or not at an angle to say one way or the other whether the flight path was north or south. And his point being, they do now counter the north path testimony. But it must be stressed that some of these very witnesses said they saw the impact of a plane. Who knows, maybe they only assumed because of the sequence that the plane hit – never the less this is the testimony and that is what we have to deal with.

So, I choose to reiterate my position that there is nothing that can be determined by simply choosing the testimony that supports ones particular hypothesis. And this is what is happening on all sides in the controversy.

I think the strongest evidence in the Pentagon case is the obvious lies of the high military staff, and the executive branch. The lack of any forensic evidence and chain of custody for that.
And it is the authorities [again] that have not only not proved their case, but proved an ongoing cover-up in a glaring and blatant fashion.

“Let’s face it the two Pentagon cops were convinced the plane they saw hit the Pentagon. So you are now taking half of their testimony and disregarding the other half.”

Nobody is “disregarding” anything. Neither CIT nor any of their supporters pretend that the witnesses don’t believe/say the plane hit. But one half of their testimony is correct, the other half isn’t. Even all of the CIT detractors agree that NoC and impact are mutually exclusive. So, are they correct about NoC or impact? Well, consider that two planes had already hit the WTC, and most eyewitnesses would probably be aware of this. Then they see a plane approach the Pentagon and disappear behind a fireball. Shortly thereafter, the US govt and media is telling the whole world that a plane crashed into the Pentagon. If this isn’t a classic example of witnesses being “led,” I don’t know what is. However, there was no propaganda machine telling the world or the witnesses what to believe re the flight path being NoC or SoC. Therefore, this part of their testimony was untainted, not “led,” pure.

“They have insisted on this point countless times since the CIT video was released: they think the plane hit the Pentagon.”

“The CIT video” you’re probably referring to is National Security Alert from 2009, but in their very first 2007 video PentaCon, the officers’ entire, unedited testimony is in the presentation, where they clearly say the plane hit. I can’t imagine anybody who could watch ANY of the CIT presentations and actually come away thinking that CIT was presenting the witnesses as “truther” witnesses who are dying to go on record opposing the official story. The two Pentagon officers were practically high-fiving each other for their corroborating testimony “proving” that a plane (and not a missile or global hawk as early “truthers” were speculating) hit the Pentagon.

“I don’t have any idea of what Legge’s take is on “Snowcrash”. Whether he is the same person as Legge wrote a paper needs to be more than “alleged” to even consider anything about it.”

The “alleged” was in reference to whether “Michel deBoer” aka Snowcrash is in fact his real identity. He is on record as saying that he “helped” Frank Legge with his “paper”.

“You will note that even in Onesliceshorts excellent spread of testimonies and witness positions many of these simply prove that the witness was too far away or not at an angle to say one way or the other whether the flight path was north or south”

Mind pointing out which witnesses whose positions “simply prove that the witness was too far away or not at an angle to say one way or the other whether the flight path was north or south”??

That’s an extreme misinterpretation of what I found researching the witnesses quoted by disinformationists Arabesque and Jim Hoffman. Please, for the sake of an honest debate on the subject, avoid the disinformationist literature and research for yourself.

1. Many (in fact up to 30%) of the disinfo claim of “104 witnesses to an impact” were INSIDE the Pentagon when the attack happened.

2. Many of the same witnesses linked to weren’t even there!

3. Many of the same witnesses are on record as saying that they didn’t see the alleged impact.

4. Many are second or third hand unconfirmed media reports (some of which have been rejected when they have been contacted by independent sources)

5. Many were in no position to actually see the flightpath and/or the alleged impact.

6. Witnesses quoted along Route 27 on closer inspection either described the NOC flightpath or contradicted the official path and/or the alleged FDR data (contrary to some people who cherrypick which part of the OCT they choose to believe, they are part and parcel of the official narrative – I’ll expand on that if you want)

7. Many witnesses who claim to have seen and allegedly were in a position to see the alleged impact describe the NOC flightpath and/or contradict the alleged FDR bank data that Legge and every government loyalist has pinned their colours to in Warren Stutt’s “decode”. It’s horseshit but they claim it’s the real deal.

8.Many witnesses who claim to have witnessed the alleged impact and who were allegedly in a position to see it contradict the OCT (as per the alleged damage to lightpole 1 vs aircraft dimensions) 25ft AGL in a descent from lightpole 1 and claim that the aircraft “struck” at 2nd to 3rd floor level (on a 4 story building)

9. Many witnesses contradict the 540-580 mph speed.

10. Many of the NOC witnesses are on record as not having seen the alleged impact.

11. Some of the witnesses would not have been PHYSICALLY able to see the official path from their stated POVs.

12. Nobody contradicts the NOC flightpath.

Impact is a physical impossibility from NOC.

Even the slightest deviation from the directional damage path requires this manouevre

I get your drift. And I will tell you where you have drifted to here: You are blowing the strength of your arguments way out of proportion.

I think you are making the biggest mistake in characterizing those who disagree with you as “disinformationists”, such as Hoffman and Arabesque, who have been instrumental in showing government malfeasance and the impossblilty of the official story – especially of the tower “collapses”

Does it not seem even the slightest bit strange that Pilots for 9/11 were more than happy to accept the FDR when it seemed to show the plane too high to hit the Pentagon, and now they have suddenly decided it is bogus?

Yes yes, I know – a lot of water under a lot of bridges…and everybody is all wet.

As far as I am concerned you haven’t ‘proven’ anything but your capacity for intransigent opinions. It is developing into that on both sides of this issue. This game of “Who’s The Shill” is really getting old. It is become as, “My daddy can beat up your daddy”…such arguments should have been left on the 2nd grade school yard.

I thought that you would cease to read the disinformationist literature and actually quote or point me to where witnesses actually countered the NOC evidence instead of blowing wind here.
Do you think that I actually pulled those figures and that list from my nether regions?

“Yes OSS,

I get your drift. And I will tell you where you have drifted to here: You are blowing the strength of your arguments way out of proportion.

I think you are making the biggest mistake in characterizing those who disagree with you as “disinformationists”, such as Hoffman and Arabesque, who have been instrumental in showing government malfeasance and the impossblilty of the official story – especially of the tower “collapses”

Wrong. I have and can prove where, when and by whom, the disinformation has been posted repeatedly.

Straight from the horse’s mouth (Frank Legge)

“[5] Eye witnesses. One estimate is that there are about 89 published reports of witnesses who state that they saw something hit the Pentagon, many stating that it was a plane.

“Does it not seem even the slightest bit strange that Pilots for 9/11 were more than happy to accept the FDR when it seemed to show the plane too high to hit the Pentagon, and now they have suddenly decided it is bogus?”

Wrong. Now I know you’re reading from Legge’s crap. Read through Rob Balsamo’s response to this, and other claims..

“As far as I am concerned you haven’t ‘proven’ anything but your capacity for intransigent opinions. It is developing into that on both sides of this issue. This game of “Who’s The Shill” is really getting old. It is become as, “My daddy can beat up your daddy”…such arguments should have been left on the 2nd grade school yard.”

Says the guy who’s every sweeping statement and opinion has been answered by backed up facts, research and on the ground interviews.
I’m not using the “shill” argument at all. If it’s false information it’s false information.

What needs to be done is for detractors to explain how the directional damage was caused, or the laws of aerodynamics for an alleged standard Boeing 757 were suspended within that basin of land in front of the Pentagon.

Enough with the childish insults and do some legwork. Still waiting on those witnesses ww.

The fact that the witnesses in National Security Alert describe contradictory things does not cancel out anything. They describe in great detail the path the plane took. Not one of them has the slightest hesitation in putting the plane on a path that can’t account for downed light poles or building damage.

Some of these witnesses believe they saw the impact, but this does not make the two beliefs equivalent. Robert Turcios, the gas station employee, was at the station but he admits he couldn’t see impact because his view was obstructed. Lagasse and Brooks were in a similar position.

All of the NSA witnesses believe the plane hit, and why wouldn’t they? The plane flew towards the building and a huge explosion followed. Several of them assume the plane hit even though they couldn’t actually see any impact. Some say they saw impact. If you see a plane fly towards a building at an unusually low altitude, then you see an explosion, then you see all the media reporting a crash, you are going to believe the plane crashed. This was intended to be an illusion.

We need to address the north flight path reports from these witnesses. If they’re right, the plane crash was faked. Evidence was planted, with a cab driver’s impaled windshield thrown in to support the story. This critical evidence is not invalidated because some or all of them were fooled by the illusion.

@Adam Syed
As I’ve pointed out previously here, CIT’s conclusion that the plane flew over the building is reached as if none of the witnesses who said the plane hit the building existed.They don’t come into their evidence assessment. A basic principle of evidence assessment is that all the evidence, evidence that supports a conclusion and evidence that contradicts it, is weighed up before you reach a conclusion. Why do you think people disagree with them? What evidence would people be using to say their conclusion is wrong if they didn’t have evidence to point to? How can someone come to a conclusion about an event saying it’s ‘conclusive’ and beyond a ‘reasonable doubt’ when every relevant eyewitness who was there says they are wrong? – and this is a conclusion that is supposed to be based on how reliable eyewitness evidence is.
The way CIT assess the evidence of this event breaks practically all the basic rules of evidence assessment, and these are not rules that are written down – anyone who for instance serves on a jury would be expected to know them and apply them without having being told about them.

Every relevant witness does NOT say they are wrong. Were the witnesses in National Security Alert all mistaken? Were they lying? Do they make a credible case that the plane flew on the north side? If so, how did the light poles get hit? You don’t have to even mention flyover to show how the official version is false.

Tell me, are you just reading this debate on the blog here, or are you following some of the URL attachments to see some of this evidence for yourself?

I can’t see how you can be so convinced that the witness testimony actually supports the South side approach, once you get into the deeper analysis of what that testimony amounts to; there is indeed more controversy than you have allowed for in your remarks.

If you want to keep up here, you had better put your study-cap on and do some work, rather than simply this abstract reasoning you bring to the table.

Consider Robert Turcios, Lagasse and Brooks. The last two, the Pentagon policemen ‘swear’ they saw the plane hit the building – BUT, they couldn’t have, it is physically impossible as pointed out by Turcios, and as has been explained here on the blog. Their POV is blocked by a rise in the landscape in front of the building.

So just there you have two witnesses who claim to have seen impact, but could not have. This is why it would be beneficial for you to become more acquainted with the nuances of this testimony and it’s analysis.

@Craig McKee
Every relevant eyewitness who was there said the plane did not fly over the Pentagon. There is not one eyewitness who says the plane flew over the building. There were scores of people in a position to see it and they all said the plane hit the building. CIT’s conclusion that the plane didn’t hit the building was reached without reference to that evidence. As you have emphasised , the evidence you are talking about is the evidence about where the plane flew relative to the Citco gas station. If the evidence from these witnesses says that the plane flew NOC then you have a working hypothosis that it flew NOC. If the plane flying NOC means that the plane had to fly over the building then you have to look at all the available evidence about whether the plane hit the building or not and see if it supports that conclusion or contradicts it.That way all of the evidence gets to be assessed fairly and objectively without any prior conclusion having been reached about it. What CIT do is ,having interviewed witnesses about where the plane flew, they come to a conclusion about where the plane flew- they actually come to that conclusion initially after talking to only 3 eyewitnesses, saying that it’s beyond a reasonable doubt. They have now come to a conclusion and that leads directly to the conclusion that the plane flew over the building without any of the evidence from scores of eyewitnesses that contradict that conclusion playing any part in it.
Combining this with a patent bias from the outset and a basic misunderstanding of the concept of contradiction, the pejorative division of witnesses depending on what they say and an apparent lack of ability to judge what is plausible from what isn’t , the whole thing is deeply flawed and not in least likely to arrive at any credible conclusion.

@hybridroque1
I am actually familiar with a lot of this stuff and just to deal with what you say about Turcios and Lagasse and Brooks- first of all these are not neccesserily witnesses in the best place to see the whether the plane hit the building or not, there are witnesses far closer to the building on the road and walking near the building, and even people from a distance who had an overall view of the event . There are literally scores of them as I think you have probably seen.
For these witnesses though, Turcios he says he didn’t see the impact because it was obstructed.. if you look at the DVD where they interview him , he can clearly see the whole facade of the building apart from the lower part of the building. If the plane flew over the building it would never go below the roofline of the building – you can see either on the CIT site or Pilots for Truth they do an animation showing the plane flying over the building and it is always sillouetted against the sky until it reaches the building. His view of the plane is not obstructed by anything. His view of the impact site is obstructed but if the plane didn’t go to the impact site it wouldn’t be obstructed. As you say there is a rise in the landscape before the building with the roadway on top of it and really that is the point, and if the plane goes below that it would be so low it would have to hit the building. If the plane flew over the building it would be above the roofline and a fireball would rise from some place he couldn’t see, rising up to meet the plane , so the plane couldn’t be the cause of it. Lagasse said in another interview that he didn’t see exactly when it hit the trailer because the roadway is raised and obstructed his view.

“I am actually familiar with a lot of this stuff and just to deal with what you say about Turcios and Lagasse and Brooks- first of all these are not neccesserily witnesses in the best place to see the whether the plane hit the building or not, there are witnesses far closer to the building on the road and walking near the building, and even people from a distance who had an overall view of the event . There are literally scores of them as I think you have probably seen.”

Whether I have seen these testimonies or not is not the issue, it is your turn to cite some specific witnesses, and then we shall see the merit of that testimony.
Turcois, Lagasse and Brooks did not see actual impact – any supposition beyond that is irrelevant – so move to your other witnesses if you will.

“I am actually familiar with a lot of this stuff and just to deal with what you say about Turcios and Lagasse and Brooks- first of all these are not neccesserily witnesses in the best place to see the whether the plane hit the building or not, there are witnesses far closer to the building on the road and walking near the building, and even people from a distance who had an overall view of the event . There are literally scores of them as I think you have probably seen.”

Be more specific Mr Wright. “overall view”?

For the drivers on Route 27 there is a small window of oppurtunity, relatively speaking, where the descent of the aircraft could be seen. At the OCT time of almost 3 seconds from the Navy Annex to the Pentagon facade and the alleged impact area. This extends from just beyond the first overhead sign beside the bridge travelling North to the point where the aircraft traversed the road (those driving south would obviously not see it from that point on)

02:00 – the road that winds down Colombia Pike

03:00 – point on Columbia Pike where alleged impact site comes into view. Also the road that leads under the bridge where lightpoles 1 and 2 are. Nobody is on record at this tram of road.

I395 Eastbound from before Navy Annex to underpass

01:00 – view of flightpath visible but not alleged impact zone

01:18 – view of alleged impact area after passing overhead sign on bridge

1. Did those in the driver seat have an “overall view”? Never mind the actual blindspots in the car but through the cars in the other lanes?

2. The OCT speed (the video actually shows an object travelling at 40-80mph less than official speed over 750ft – the approximate distance from lightpole 1 to the lawn)

3. The fireball (which was claimed to be 200ft in diameter – the lawn is 400ft+ wide. Here’s the nearest I could find to the bright flash from the fireball

4. Last but not least, the position of the sun that morning at the time of the attack.

If you don’t believe the latter is a factor, you’re being dishonest.

Those people in the vicinity of the Pentagon didn’t have the benifit of viewing what happened on GoogleEarth, or repeatedly on a video. They were in a high stress situation already heightened by what had happened in Manhattan, caught in traffic jams in some instances, listening to the radio for news or phoning work/home or the road itself.

And the funniest thing of all is that people like Wright believe that somebody could physically sit transfixed and watch an explosion that was felt 3km away through a “silver bright” fireball!

I’m not saying that people had no view or that people are convinced that they saw an aircraft hit the Pentagon but the flightpath witnessed and corroborated makes this an impossibility.

We’re talking about an unexpected event happening within seconds and climatizing in a huge fireball and explosion as if the sight of an alleged 757 bearing down on them or the building wasn’t surreal enough.

-The taxi is clearly several car lengths before the bridge in this shot.

– No landmark to measure against

– No landmark to measure against

– No landmark to measure against

– No landmark to measure against

– No landmark to measure against

– Aerial shot…turquoise line with dot…regardless of scale this dot is obviously placed before the street below the underpass.

“Can you name any witnesses who were in a position to see the final seconds of aircraft’s flight who contradict this “spittoon juice”~OSS

Terry Morin and Albert Hemphill, who said the course of the plane was “as though it was coming up Columbia Pike” and “it went right into the Pentagon” He had an excellent vantage point from a top floor office in the Naval Annex.

These are just two, Pentagon Witness testimony has all been assembled in a spreadsheet which includes witness quotes and sources. It also includes arguments made against some witnesses. Responses to these arguments are included in the spreadsheet, thus producing a compact resource.

“Some of these witnesses believe they saw the impact, but this does not make the two beliefs equivalent. Robert Turcios, the gas station employee, was at the station but he admits he couldn’t see impact because his view was obstructed. Lagasse and Brooks were in a similar position.”

This is an important point, and I agree. We need to determine if Turcois’ view was obstructed because of the rise of the landscape, or because there were trees or something from his angle. If it is a general problem caused by the rise of the landscape, this makes Turcois’ assertion much stronger. If it is obstruction by objects or trees or whatever, then it is another matter.

Marquis and Ranke were both there, did they photograph from the Citco parking lot? Is the Pentagon first level visible from the parking lot? Can the lawn in front of the impact point be seen from the parking lot?

If the view of the Pentagon is only of the building from a few stories and the actual impact site is not visible, then the testimony of the North side approach is stronger than testimony of the plane hitting – I agree to that.

They did shoot from the Citgo parking lot. When they interviewed Chadwick Brooks, the Pentagon was in the background, but not easy to see. I can’t even tell which floors are visible. Check it out for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o

Brooks and Lagasse are on from about 26 minutes in until about 34. It is so obvious from this that they saw a north side approach. But seeing impact would have been much, much more difficult. If flyover did occur, it would very likely have fooled both of these men from where they were standing.

To rate the two claims as being of equal value or to give them equal weight defies reason. Yes, we should consider all that they said. But many people will tell you they witnessed the gravitational collapse of the towers. Does that mean this fact is as likely to be correct as the fact that planes hit? The idea was to fool people.

Full credit to you for being cautious. But concluding that we just can’t know is taking it too far.

“If the view of the Pentagon is only of the building from a few stories and the actual impact site is not visible, then the testimony of the North side approach is stronger than testimony of the plane hitting – I agree to that.”

After more information about the Turcios testimony, I think it is clear that the officers were fooled by the explosion as they could not have seen impact either.

At this point I am leaning so far North, I will need a prop to walk straight…Lol

Good job so far guys. I have to say the argument is very convincing. If I say that certainty is an illusive thing for me, be patient. There is the standard of “beyond reasonable doubt” that I am quickly drawing near…

“We need to determine if Turcois’ view was obstructed because of the rise of the landscape, or because there were trees or something from his angle.”

Look at the interview of Turcios. It is clearly the rise of the landscape that Turcios points towards as he makes his comment about obstruction.

“I think you are making the biggest mistake in characterizing those who disagree with you as “disinformationists”, such as Hoffman and Arabesque, who have been instrumental in showing government malfeasance and the impossblilty of the official story – especially of the tower “collapses””

For the record, I also publicly declare my 99.9% certainty that Hoffman and Arabesque are disinformationists. In fact, I’m 100% they’re disinformationists and 99.9% sure they’re paid ones.

I do not call people who merely disagree with me as disinfo agents. If a person tells me, “I watched Blueprint for Truth and I’m still not convinced the towers were blown up,” that’s fine by me. If a person tells me they watched NSA and is still unconvinced that a plane didn’t hit the Pentagon, that’s fine with me.

I call people disinformationists when they continue to put out proven bad information or continue to argue in favor of an official aspect of the events long after the evidence is overwhelmingly against it. For example, it doesn’t matter how many NoC witnesses are uncovered; Hoffman will continue to use arguments from personal incredulity to dismiss it out of hand; he insists that anyone who takes it seriously must be high on crack or PCP. His wife, Victoria, will drop “hit and run” comments at 911blogger. For example, if the blog entry is about an upcoming DRG speech in a certain city (i.e. not specifically about the Pentagon), she will, as predictably as clockwork, leave a comment with words to the effect of: “I think it’s unfortunate that DRG still promotes the no-plane-at-the-Pentagon hoax at this late date.” Jim and Victoria came out with anti CIT essays within a couple days of NSA being released. Likewise, when Craig Ranke soundly defeated opponent John Bursill in debate, Bursill conceded he couldn’t name a witness who supported the official path, and JUST DAYS LATER, a moderator at 911blogger, Erik Larson, posted a disinfo piece called “THE SOUTH PATH IMPACT: DOCUMENTED.” (All caps in the original too.) For me, it’s the timeing that’s most suspicious. You can just feel their nervous desparation. Speaking of Bursill, he promised, after losing the debate, to shut up and stop attacking CIT, which he did for a couple months; then he went back on the warpath against them, pretending the debate had never ocurred. When people not just promote bad info but attack genuine investigators, my agent-dar goes sky high.

Anyone here have some lime for the coconut?? I have ingested so much info today I have mental indigestion…

I will have to say that the North side flyover is most convincing. I haven’t the experience with Bursill debate…and I cannot bear to go looking at any more pages for at least a few hours…and I see no reason to doubt what you are saying as per factual argument here Adam.

As far as ‘intent’, I am still inclined to attribute most [not all] to invested biases. I explained what I mean by that before. Some people DO consider themselves “experts”, and have become dogmatic as to their views, and I think this type of bias is what drives many of the North-side naysayers. This is very complex, and I am not prepared to finger anyone with the shill badge myself. I don’t blame some of you for doing so. But personally that is one of those things that needs to be parsed most carefully before indictments are handed down.

Where did the flyover plane go hybridrogue? CIT doesn’t like to talk about that ever since they were forced to admit that runway 15 is not long enough for a 757. We can eliminate a SE escape path because a plane flying agaonst the prevailing traffic would be very conspicuous. We can eliminate an E escape path because the plane would fly across the river paralell to an interstate highway bridge. We can eliminate NE and N escape paths because the plane would violate the no-fly security area at the Capitol Mall. There is only one possible escape route– to do a 105-degree screaming turn to the NW up the river. This spectacular high-G turn would be very conspicuous to traffic on the Interstate, to grounds workers at the airport, to golfers at the Potomac Golf Course, to residents and employees at the Columbia Island marina, and to the plane-spotters at Gravely Point. That’s the only way out for a flyover plane. And yet CIT refuses to go out looking for witnesses to this spectacular turn.

How quickly you forget, or how quickly you are eager to ramp up the disinformation merry-go-round that we’ve ridden before.

In these very forums it was proven that runway 15 was long enough for a 757. Particularly when it was a sunny day. Particularly when the (auto?) pilot was exceptional, having already demonstrated a precision 330 degree 2000 foot descending spiral. Particularly when it might not have been the proported 757. Yes, runway 15 was short and not recommended for passenger carrying 757’s, but when these are taken off the table, conclusions change.

For me, it’s the timing that’s most suspicious… After losing the debate, [so-and-so] shuts up… for a couple months; then he went back on the warpath…, pretending the debate had never ocurred. When people not just promote bad info but attack genuine investigators, my agent-dar goes sky high.

And with that being said, Mr. Brian Good enters this discussion promoting the very debunked points from his last visit: runway 15 was too short.

Señor, runway 15 was not used by 757s because it was not long enough. Its use by a 757 on 9/11 would have been very noteworthy to planespotters, ATCs, airport employees, and pilots. And then what do you do with the plane? Grind it into little pieces and flush it down the toilet? You really haven’t thought this through. Your material isn’t getting any better, I see. “Desparation”? What’s that?

“Señor, runway 15 was not used by 757s because it was not long enough. Its use by a 757 on 9/11 would have been very noteworthy to planespotters…” ~Brian Good

Look Brian, I am getting sick of this argument as well, what fricking “planespotters”? We are talking about 9/11 here – right? How many people do you know who were ‘out and about’ ANYWHERE on 9/11???

I took the FWY from LA to SD that morning beginning in Van Nuys, going up Ventura Blvd.

I did not see ONE car, on Ventura Blvd. or on the FWY all the way, but for one single car coming the other way near Orange County.

Almost everyone was inside glued to their TV on 9/11 – now lets have a little reason mixed in with all of out strong opinions here.

By the same token, there were no planes in the sky…so any plane in the sky is an obvious stand out…

There are strong points on both sides of this issue – and handwaving those by either side is getting my ire standing on edge grinding its pearly whites.

CIT has not proven that an airplane did not crash into the Pentagon. The other side hasn’t proven that an airplane did crash into the Pentagon. That is the real situation as it stands.
Neither side wants to admit this. Is EVERYBODY crazy? That is the point of a psychological operation, is it not?

Please study our previous discussion. No sense you re-hashing the same points, that were addressed just a little bit later in the same thread, where you chime in like clockwork with the identical overstatement of the importance of planespotters, ATCs, airport employees, and pilots. [You brought them up; you provide the links. How observant and important are any of them other than ATCs?]

To your question:

what do you do with the plane? Grind it into little pieces and flush it down the toilet?

Ho-hum. This was addressed as well. For the readers benefit, what happened on the minute or within a minute of the flyover plane [my supposition] landing on Runway 15? The order went out to land all aircraft flying over the continental United States. If the flyover [and landed] plane was not the alleged plane in terms of tail number and serial number parts, etc., not much would have to be done to the plane [except make sure tail numbers were changed — maybe back to their original configuration]. It would be one plane among many dozens parked at the airport and then days later flown to staging airports for resumption of business as usual. Hidden in plane sight (pun intended).

I really don’t care whether or not you address Mr. McKee’s query that would have put all further postings of yours into the unpublished moderation queue until you did. (You snuck some by Mr. McKee.) Alas, your bot-antics here in re-grinding the same choking chow haven’t gone unnoticed. Your trend-line isn’t ascending.

I have been familiar with the US military’s notion of “Full Spectrum Dominance” for the last 12 years, at least since the US Air Force’s publication of the “Vision 2020” document in 2000. What I fail to understand is the relevance this has for our discussion, or how it supports any of your claims or assertions you’ve made on this thread. Am I missing something? Care to make the connection for me?

..”US military’s notion of “Full Spectrum Dominance” for the last 12 years”…

Just consider what ‘full spectrum dominance’ means. Has the is been a goal for any party for more than “12 years”?

Why yes it has, ‘full spectrum dominance’ is simply Newspeak for totalitarian governance. Now, would you care to speculate on the length of history that totalitarian rule has been sought by governing powers?

To claim that even the US military has only been at this game for the last 12 years is naïve – not that you are naive, I simply mean the notion.

However, to put this in my perspective, I am asserting that the US is NOT an independent nation as perceived generally. The US is merely the garrison state for the Global Zionist Empire. The question then is for how long has Zion sought ‘full spectrum dominance’ ei; total control?

Can you place a start date on that?

I can, it is about 4000 years ago in Babylon, when the book of Deuteronomy was scribed.

This is why I say the topic is too large for this thread.

You asked about “the ILLUMINATI”, perhaps with disdain…I cannot be sure.

Just a short note on that: “the ILLUMINATI” is a brand. You must be familiar with the concept of ‘branding’ as far as public relations are concerned; Blackwater Ltd = Xe = Academi, etc.

If you cannot anticipate where I am going with this I will spell it out; The ILLUMINATI itself is a “re-brand” of something much older than that specific organization. That it has slipped under covers and reappeared under new brands and countless subsidiaries, is the “Search for the Manchurian Love Doll” that systems science takes in application to history.

The ongoing MO of this organizational system is and has always been; ‘Theater’, or the control and propagation of ‘appearances’. This the major forte, not to say that a myriad of other controlling techniques are not applied.

Obviously this post cannot be seen as a summation, but only a quick abstract of what I am talking about. This framing is panoramic, and thus impossible for a short conversation.

You make a lot of assertions for which no evidence or sources are presented, which makes it awfully hard to verify much of what you claim.

I am a scientist. What impresses me most is verifiable evidence. With the nature of the internet, being such an open and freeform flow of information without restriction on who can author and submit pieces on any subject imaginable, the main challenge for me in wading through and filtering out all the noise and endless amounts of non-credible, non-reliable, misinterpreted, or outright balderdash presented as though it were the Ultimate Truth handed down from the Ultimate Authority on Whatever, has been finding enough time to parse through all of this crap to get to anything worth my while.

You have to understand that you are not the first person I have encountered who claims to have figured it all out. I’m not saying that you are full of crap. But you have to understand that you are competing against an endless parade of people who also claim to have figured it all out as well. The problem is that all these people who insist that they have figured it all out and have the Ultimate Truth about who exactly has run the world for the past 4000 years or so rarely agree with each other, and more often than not vehemently disagree with each other on their theories. So for you to expect me to take your word for it on this subject matter while you refuse to offer any evidence to back up your particular theory, well, it aint gonna happen.

At this point I’d much prefer that you address the questions (of a more simple and finite nature) I’ve posed to you earlier in this thread that remain ignored and unanswered than to veer off into ancient history into subjects that even you admit are impossible for a short conversation and are too large for this thread.

Thanks for the list of books. 2 of those, THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION and Antony Sutton’s SKULL AND BONES, are already in my library. I will check out for TRAGEDY AND HOPE.

You make an awful lot of assumptions regarding my knowledge on these matters, mostly along the lines of “dude, you don’t know shit”. I find your attitude a bit offensive and presumptuous. And arrogant.

I will note that not one of those books contains anything pertaining to 9/11, and they certainly are insufficient to provide any relevant evidence at all that could be be used to back up your assertions as to the specific parties you claim were major conspirators in 9/11. Nor are these 3 books sufficient to prove your overall theory of who exactly has been running the world for the last 4000 years or so, to the point where you can know exactly who signs off on everything of significance that happens in the world today, and again, would certainly not satisfy the requirements for proving which parties are guilty of 9/11 that would past muster in any judicial system that I know of.

“But to put the point to the matter at hand, I have not disputed the Israeli participation in 9/11 – You are the one that has disputed the wider matrix of parties and actors involved.”

You are correct. And, as I’ve explained to you over and over again, this “wider matrix” that you implicate in 9/11, including such parties as the United Arab Emirates, British Intelligence, and Saudi Arabia, have a right to be held innocent until proven guilty. I have asked you over and over again to provide this evidence. And all you continue to offer me towards that end is some sort of “guilt by association” based on your particular theory of who runs the world based upon various and mostly unproven assertions about ancient history that somehow magically allows you to assert with certainly and without the need for a proper investigation, who all of the parties are that were guilty of the 9/11 crime.

“And to tell you the truth I consider that ignorance, as it is as well documented as your Israeli Mossad connection.”

Well, to tell you the truth, I consider your approach to be one of utter stupidity and offensiveness. I have tried to be civil with you, and yet you continue to have the gall to come on here and claim that your knowledge of the last 4000 years or so of world history and “deep interlocking secret power relationships” is so thorough and complete as to allow you to already know all of the answers as to which parties are guilty of planning and executing 9/11 without backing it up with any evidence and without doing a proper investigation, and then when I don’t automatically bow to your claimed superiority of knowledge and analytical abilities and instead ask you to provide evidence to back up your assertions like everybody else is expected to do, you accuse ME of being ignorant. Too funny!

You are hilarious, dude. Where are you from?

“FINI”

okthanksbye

Since you apparently have no intentions of answering some simple questions and instead want to keep sidetracking the discussing and veering into ancient history, and accusing me of being arrogant when I don’t just automatically take your word for it that you have the Ultimate Truth, I guess I’m pretty much done with you too.

Look ww, let my try to break it down for you as simple as I can, since you don’t seem to be able grasp what I’ve been trying to explain to you regarding the proper way to do research that allows one to utilize verifiable evidence that can lead one to a logical conclusion.

You see, very few, if any of us here on this blog discussion group have ever met each other in person, let alone developed a long term relationship to be able to really know for sure what each person’s area of expertise and authority is, or whether they are completely reasonable and honest in their claims and assertions. “Just take my word for it” in this situation is just not sufficient to win an argument. That is why people here expect each other to back up their arguments with valid logic and verifiable evidence so that we don’t need to know whether or not we can just take someone’s word for it.

I understand that you consider yourself special and that we should all just bow to your claimed Authority of What the Ultimate Truth Is and allow you to bypass all of the steps everyone else is required to go through to get people to accept their conclusions, but you aint special and you don’t deserve special treatment, so get over yourself. If you can’t accept this fact that you are expected to back up your claims with evidence before people will take you seriously here along with everybody else, then you are in the wrong forum.

If you are still confused about this, I recommend studying the following concepts:

– what evidence is
– what constitutes a credible source
– logic
– the scientific method

Finality on this conversation is fine with me. I don’t think there is anything else for me to say to you anyway without repeating myself at this point. You continue to insist on making baseless assertions and expecting people to take your word for it and I continue to insist that you back up your assertions with evidence, so we are at a stale mate.

What do your books on logic and detective work and research strategies say about wholesale dismissal of a whole area of evidence as if it didn’t exist?

I already know what they say.

Now I have said many times over that even an introduction to these issues is far beyond the scope of this thread. I have said many times over that I am aware of and accept Israeli/Mossad involvement in the 9/11 provocation. You don’t seem to grasp that I am in agreement with you, but you want to see to a narrowing my views on other participants and a higher cabal involved here.

Now, one more time, give it a rest, you are spinning your wheels needlessly here.

@keenanroberts
You gave a list of books there dealing with logic and investigation etc. and I wonder what any of them would say about the kind of logic laid out in ‘The first known accomplice’ video posted above by Onesliceshort (12th April 10.44 pm). You only have to listen to the first 90 seconds of it and to me the flaws in it are obvious.

I am well familiar with the whole story about Lloyd England and the magical light pole and have watched CIT’s ‘The first known accomplice’ video multiple times. From the first time I watched the video and learned of the fairy tale story about how the light pole weighing hundreds of pounds that was allegedly slammed by an airliner allegedly traveling at 500+ mph somehow managed to only pierce Lloyds windshield but somehow managed to not damage either the hood or top of the car, and suspended itself in mid air, staying just within that little hole in the windshield while the car spun around to a stop, and then was carefully removed by an the elderly Lloyd who had just narrowly escaped death, with the help of some unseen, anonymous bystander, ever so carefully so that the hood was not scratched (even though the pole weighed hundreds of pounds), and quickly before any pictures were taken, I asked myself, “how gullible does someone have to be to buy such an obviously bogus fairy tale?”.

What I can’t fathom, A.Wright, is why you don’t see the many problems with this fairy tale.

@keenanroberts
A group of people coming up with a plan to carry out a ridiculous unbelievable physically impossible fairytale that only the gullible would believe happened is the non-sequiter. The more ridiculous you say it is , the more ridiculous the idea of it being planned. Imagine pitching that to a room full of people and thinking they would sign up to it. You would have to think people are mad.

1: an inference that does not follow from the premises; specifically : a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent
2: a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said

“The more ridiculous you say it is, the more ridiculous the idea of it being planned.”

Um, that statement is actually a good example of a non-sequiter, by the way. Something that you seem to be very practiced at because you seem to use non-sequiturs in just about every comment of yours. Which makes me doubt that you could have accidently misused the word above.

A.Wright, I used to think you were an honest, well-intentioned person who just fell in with the wrong crowd of shills at 911Blogger. But as time goes on and I see your continued pathological intellectual dishonesty displayed, I’ve had to re-evaluate. Now I consider you a very dishonest whose intentions are not the least bit admirable.

In the future when you are ready to stop with the non-sequiturs and dishonesty, I might be interested in debating with you. Until then, I’m pretty much done with you and will not be responding to anymore of your intellectually dishonest comments. Have a nice day.

A.Wright, on second thought, I think it is possible that although you seem to use non-sequiturs all the time in your blog discussions with people that you might not actually understand the definition of the term, and it is possible that your misuse of the term above was an accident. However, the fact that you consistently resort to fallacies and dishonest arguments makes it difficult to give you the benefit of the doubt that it was an honest mistake. You obviously don’t value honesty and integrity very highly, which makes it very hard to give you the benefit of the doubt on anything.

But now that you understand the term non-sequitur, can you please desist in utilizing it, along with all the other fallacies you regularly use? I would appreciate it.

Full-spectrum dominance is a military concept whereby a joint military structure achieves control over all elements of the battlespace using land, air, maritime and space based assets. Full spectrum dominance includes the physical battlespace; air, surface and sub-surface as well as the electromagnetic spectrum and information space. Control implies that freedom of opposition force assets to exploit the battlespace is wholly constrained

Electromagnetic spectrum and information space relate to both jamming (& disabling) and hijacking.

William J. Lynn, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, states that “as a doctrinal matter, the Pentagon has formally recognized cyberspace as a new domain in warfare . . . [which] has become just as critical to military operations as land, sea, air, and space.”

In July 2009, Madsen released a report saying there was a Q Group within the National Security Agency tasked with concealing US government involvement in 9/11.

The term Information Warfare (IW) is primarily an American concept involving the use and management of information technology in pursuit of a competitive advantage over an opponent. Information warfare may involve collection of tactical information, assurance(s) that one’s own information is valid, spreading of propaganda or disinformation to demoralize or manipulate[1] the enemy and the public, undermining the quality of opposing force information and denial of information-collection opportunities to opposing forces. Information warfare is closely linked to psychological warfare.

Here’s a quote from me:

A recent dawning in my own understanding of 9/11 is the depressing fact that the public during our lifetimes (and our kids) will never, ever get an objective investigation based on open-access to government, military, & media archives. At this point in time, everything you or I think we know about 9/11 is disinformation. It all requires pain-staking vetting. When 9/11 Truthers … dismiss disinformation sources out-of-hand …, you become a tool of disinformation in advancing its agenda, which includes taking out of play many nuggets of truth.

This video should have been posted in my last entry concerning the “overall view” that people would have had on Route 27 the morning of 9/11

“hybridrogue1 says:
April 16, 2012 at 2:34 am
So…okay, everyone seems to have left this one up their sleeves:

What are the names of the witnesses who witnessed the flyover of the plane?

Any idea’s.

ww”

There’s a whole litany of points raised and ignored throughout the last 20 or 30 posts regarding the validity of the NOC witness testimony, Lloyde England, disinformation on the alleged “OCT friendly” witnesses, the actual view of the Pentagon that disinformationists exaggerate. I’d like those points addressed before we go on the Brian Good roadshow.

1. Based on those posts, did the aircraft fly NOC according to eyewitness testimony?

2. Is impact possible from NOC?

WW, to show that I’m not avoiding the flyover question, and in an act of good faith that those questions will be answered ( and backed up), I’ll post testimony from two witnesses that support the flyover itself.

Eric Dihle

Yes, it’s second hand testimony to the actual event, but it’s still fresh in this guy’s mind that he overheard Pentagon staff describing “a bomb” going off while the plane “kept going”.

It can’t be interpreted in any other way.

The official narrative has the aircraft travelling just off the ground, at an angle southwest across the lawn. Like this

Question is, how could this be “mistaken” for a flyover?

And Roosevelt Roberts.

Now before Brian Good deluges us with his brand of smoke and mirrors spam, tell me what the following quote from Roberts tells you.

“Roosevelt Roberts: It seemed like [incomprehensible], by the time I got the dock it was already in the parking lot in lane one, and it was so large, you couldn’t miss from seeing it.

Craig Ranke: Right, but from what direction did it seem like it came from?

Roosevelt Roberts: It seemed like that it came from uh… it… hold on a second… it seem like it came from uh… south west.. look, the same way it came in or appeared that it came in, almost right where that first plane had uhm… fell into the Pentagon right there, it.. it.. the.. it looked like it came from that direction”

Is he talking about seeing a plane after the alleged impact?

And no, he isn’t talking about seeing the alleged “Flight 77” OCT approach.

“ROBERTS: ..upon impact I stepped out the little, uh, booth that I was in, and the distance between that booth and the edge of that dock is about maybe, I don’t know like — 7 steps from there.”

Nor is he talking about seeing a repetition of the tower 2 impact on TV at 09:37.

Admittedly his testimony regarding the path is confusing (he was being interviewed over his mobile phone while driving) but he’s adamant that the aircraft he saw banked towards the Mall to the North of the building.

Two other important points.

He claimed to see the aircraft banking over the light poles in “South Parking”. This has been claimed by detractors to have been Roberts actually describing the attack jet crossing Route 27.

1. He claimed to see the aircraft for “a quick 5 seconds”. Barring the limited view he would have had from the South Loading Dock (he actually states in his CIT interview that he was at East Loading Dock on the other side of the building), the OCT has the aircraft taking just 1.3 seconds from light poles 1 and 2 to the facade. He obviously can’t see more than half of this section of the OCT flightpath. “A quick 5 seconds”?

2. He claims that the aircraft was “banking”. According to the light pole damage, the aircraft would have had to have been in level flight.

First the poles:

If there was any bank through the poles, they would have been sheared at different heights.

Second, the official flight path through the poles. Note the alleged trajectory of the right wing through the poles.

Even the slightest of banks would have caused those poles to have missed.

Thirdly, the alleged FDR bank data that Frank Legge and government loyalists have pinned their colours to shows NO left bank data in the final seconds. None. The “roll angle” depicted as positive values represent “right bank”. There are no negative values (left bank)

Lastly, if we ignore Roberts’ comment about being at the East Loading Dock (which would be a strange “slip of the tongue” as he mentions South Parking in the same breath) which is situated here..

We have to see which witnessed NOC path is closest to his field of vision..

There are witnesses who describe the aircraft in a sharp left bank as it crossed the lawn. Who’s to say that the aircraft didn’t fly over the southwestern corner of the building given all of these descriptions? Added to that, the multiple descriptions of the height (2nd or 3rd floor of a 4 story building)

Bottom line, Roberts needs to be reinterviewed and Aldo Marquis had asked him to contact him to draw an overhead map of the flight of the aircraft. He refused.

Now, I’d like to ask you something WW. We have the scientific and witness evidence concerning the explosive destruction of the towers and WTC7. Can you provide me with the detonation caps used that day? 100% unmistakeable traces of high/exotic explosives? A whistleblower who actually rigged the buildings?

No, you can’t. Because the evidence was trucked away and destroyed.
The Pentagon was a crime scene controlled by the criminals themselves. As with Manhattan and Shanksville.

If you ask why any possible flyover witnesses haven’t come forward, you just have to look at how Barry Jennings completely flipped his original story and genuine concerns about what happened in WTC7 prior to the tower collapses.
A mixture of peer pressure, cognitive dissonance and fear just coming out of two previous decades where government assassinations were the norm during Bush Senior, Reagan and Clinton administrations. Just look at the Oklahoma bombing, TWA800 bombing, Waco, Lockerbie…

Witness testimony was suppressed to the point of invalidity and those that stuck to their guns were “suicided”. Especially in Oklahoma. 500+ witnesses to the TWA800 missile ignored??

Nobody is going to come forward voluntarily. You’re actually asking me to provide the Holy Grail of 9/11 that would see gallows being put up in the morning. Not asking much, huh?

The NOC evidence is going the same way as all previous ops have gone regarding witness testimony (JFK anyone?). Official denial, propaganda, ridicule and cointel muddying the waters. It’s got to the stage where it doesn’t matter what anybody actually witnesses, the official line supercedes everything. Fascist heaven.

NOC = No impact.

At the very minimum the official stance of (real) truth seekers should be that according to the dearth and blanket censorship of officially released evidence, alleged evidence that does not add up to impact (FDR) and the overwhelming witness evidence that contradicts the official narrative, there was no impact at the Pentagon.

That’s the most narrow minded, insulting, lazy response to all of the legwork I had to do throughout this blog just to give you an idea of just some of the research available that pins down the NOC approach.
I posted the flyover witnesses even though you’ve slimed out of responses owed for your insulting “counterarguments”.

I was going to say go f*** yourself but the fact that you’ve a new friend in A Wright will do.

“I was going to say go f*** yourself but the fact that you’ve a new friend in A Wright will do.”
~OSS

Aw, I see I got your panties in a knot. Go back through this thread, how many times have you posted those YouTubes? Oh, you added a new one {grin}.

So, your so-called witnesses are rather flat tires on your hot rod, and this spicy paint job is suppose to make up for the fact that your cart won’t roll.

My position is not a rejection of the CIT hypothesis in it’s entirety, but I have what I consider valid doubts. That you won’t accept my position of; “I ain’t sayin’ yup, and I ain’t sayin’ nope – I’m just sayin’ maybe”, then go on and give me this association moonbeam crap about Mr. Wright.

If you feel you are spinning your wheels and all your hard work is down the drain because I have dissed it, take a deep breath and think of how it may effect others reading this blog, you may have hooked some fresh meat for your crew of Northkateers. All is not lost, I assure you. The sun will rise like a happy face for you tomorrow, and you can continue your merry crusade.

All of the pro-CIT people are missing what I am actually saying here. Yes I did swing way over to your side at one point. If I have evened my keel it is only that I prefer a more nuanced approach. I have tried to make it clear that I am not ‘anti-CIT’, I am certainly not pro-official story, and I am yet not certain that some sort of craft didn’t hit the Pentagon – and if one did, I certainly do not accept the possibility of that being flt.77.

Again, I reject any ‘evidence’ asserted by the authorities – lack of IDs on parts, lack of chains of possession, etc.

If I have begun to react to the prodding to tighten me up to the CIT side, it is as I have explained above and in so many posts thus far. I have stated for the record here, I will not follow any ones script. And I feel that I am being pressured now to do so. Few things can actually piss me off, although a comment by larry27 did on the next post over. Otherwise I have been playful when being prodded to toe the line.

I may come under scrutiny for my dialog with Keenan as well. But I made it clear to him that I didn’t want to go into explaining why I think he is wrong – as it is a grand topic, a panorama topic, and nothing that can be finalized in a diverse thread like this. If we had the time and space for that discussion I would be fine with it – but it would utterly overwhelm the thread here.

I hope this clears up my position, and I hope my right to my own thinking can be respected here.

I may come under scrutiny for my dialog with Keenan as well. But I made it clear to him that I didn’t want to go into explaining why I think he is wrong – as it is a grand topic, a panorama topic, and nothing that can be finalized in a diverse thread like this. If we had the time and space for that discussion I would be fine with it – but it would utterly overwhelm the thread here.

The solution is easy. Write up an article and have Mr. McKee post it and give you full credit as a guest author. In such a manner, you’ll have our own thread to utterly overwhelm.

Is the book “The Gods of Eden” by William Bramely (sp?) [or similar books] also in your collection and does its theme also fit into your grand, panorama topic? Such is my level of duped useful idiotness, I am wide open to its themes, yet am uncertain to its modern day applicability.

Be that as it may, you deserve to be knocked around by your CIT flip-flopping. Another data point in your trend line. Previous data points include your unwillingness to acknowledge that:

– The nano-thermite sacred cow has been slaughtered because it is unable to address hot-spot duration. [Its ability to address pulverization is an assumption that I’ve not challenged for the sake of discussion, but may also be proven wrong.]

– The speculation into other destructive mechanisms and their energy sources being more applicable, yet you detour away from this.

– The pixels of planes is all the evidence we have of real planes. [Interesting that many of your previous employers were involved in the very same genre of making animation & pixels-on-the-telly appear real].

– The good, the bad, and the ugly are unaddressed from various sources (e.g., Dr. Wood, September Clues). Emphasis was on the good, because even as their champion, I acknowledge and have experienced the bad & ugly contained therein. I know that the bad & ugly do not rise up to the level of being able to overwhelm those good & tasty nuggets of truth contained therein.

You say I need to be knocked around…I don’t mind being knocked around. Like I said, that’s life.
If others can’t take the knockin’ that’s their problem.

Just because others may feel they have proven their point beyond a shadow of the doubt, doesn’t mean there won’t be some who disagree. And I will say I disagree to your thermate debunko-brag much more than anything about the North-side argument. I am in the ‘most probably’ lane of that northbound road.

But I still am firmly set against, the Shack jive and the Wood woowoo, and your…[hmmm??]…whatever you are on to now about the hot spots in the rubble.

And I will say I disagree to your thermate debunko-brag much more than anything about the North-side argument.

Of course neither of us wants to ride this merry-go-round again. But regardless of your disagreement to the content of my bragging, the nugget of truth is still banging away like Maxwell’s Silver Hammer regarding features of the destruction and aftermath being attributed to nano-thermite that boojie woojie high school chemistry proves it cannot address.

I would be tickled pink to have this nugget of truth proven (with correctly applied science and evidence) to be fool’s gold. You’ve had most of March and April to contact Dr. Jones on this matter and have him defend nano-thermite.

Who did you turn to? Frank Legge, someone with his own not-so-good reputation. Yet even he writes something you ought to be able to agree with (but can’t bring yourself to):

All we can say, regarding the rather amazingly long duration, is that the amount of material must have been surprisingly large.

EXACTLY MY POINT!!! Not just “surprisingly large”; massively “ginormous”. So massively ginormous that it represents improbable Occam Razor logistics, particularly when other devices in the arsensal don’t have such issues and probably had Generals & Majors with itchy trigger fingers literally dying to deploy them.

Mr. HybridRogue1 writes:

But I still am firmly set against, the Shack jive and the Wood woowoo.

Certainly, the Shack jive was rather blatant, but you dance over more nuggets that you are too eager to ditch. Your persona exhibits contradictions. For example, Bernay and the manipulation of the masses is of great interest to you. You bring up full spectrum domination. You are a self-proclaimed expert in the arts, particular the digital arts, and have an impressive resume of having worked for lots of studios who make their living creating works for the silver-screen and telly that essentially makes believable the unbelievable through digital means.

Yet the contradiction is how quickly you dismiss all nuggets of truth contained within September Clues. This isn’t to say that Shack’s shuck-and-jive on certain topics did not merit being knocked down, because the defense of those topics did. But the proven issues with pixels on the telly from inconsistencies from view-to-view to no crash physics and improbably speeds? These aren’t nuggets of truth that you are objective enough to acknowledge even when they are directly in line with the trend lines going back almost a century from Bernay.

As for the Wood woowoo? Here you were bragging about what’s in your library and what you’ve read to demonstrate your intellect and breadth of study and knowledge of worldly things, yet when the Wood woowoo is thrust before you as a symbol of objectivity, a low benchmark and starting point for the debate, you fail… Miserably and continually to this day. Don’t have it and never read it, eh? Such a strong, open-minded, and objective position for discussion, eh?

Too many nuggets of truth are in Wood woowoo to make it not woowoo in its entirety. Even for the isolated items that I suspect as being woowoo, it isn’t enough to taint my recommendation of Dr. Wood’s textbook to honest seekers of 9/11 truth.

Mr. HybridRogue1 writes:

But I still am firmly set against, … your…[hmmm??]…whatever you are on to now about the hot spots in the rubble.

The hot spots are evidence that lack an explanation that can stand up to: boojie woojie high school chemistry. And you are firmly set against such evidence? Clearly. In the thread I linked above, your postings outnumber mine by about three-to-one, yet nary a sliver of enlightening sunshine could slip in to loosen what you are firmly set against.

One fine day in the middle of the night,
Two dead boys got up to fight,
Back to back they faced each other,
Drew their swords and shot each other,
A Boeing airplane flew overhead
The boys said nothing cause both were dead
A deaf policeman heard the noise,
And came to arrest the two dead boys,
If you don’t believe this story’s true,
Ask the blind man he saw it too!

No, I think very little Good has to say adds to the debate. And Mr. Hybridrogue seems to be stirring the pot just for sake of doing it. Oh, and Brian, I asked you in December to tell us what about the official story you agree with and what you don’t. I told you then you couldn’t post comments until you responded to that. So please do that now.

I feel your pain. I too grow weary of those I consider crackpots. “That’s life”, as the song goes.

Oh, I don’t know, you may have a favorite sedative, perhaps a stiff drink, or a puff of the dragon lady…whatever. Don’t let it get you down. Life’s too short and the wheel of fate to unpredictable to gamble the whole stack of chips on one roll.

“And Mr. Hybridrogue seems to be stirring the pot just for sake of doing it.”

Not so Craig, I just want to emphasize that my holding a cautious position on accepting either or position on such a controversial complex issue is a decision I feel I have the right to make on my own.

I think enough prodding is enough at some point. I don’t see how expressing that can be characterized as “stirring the pot”, when I have tried to deal with it in a light hearted manner rather than going on some raging rant.

Hey smartass,
It”s not a question of demanding that you agree with me but that you provide some sort of response to all points lain out clearly for you. You’ve failed miserably and I mistakenly believed that your opinion actually mattered when you’re just an armchair theorist. You’re actually no different from Brian Good and A Wright. Dishonest and a waste of time.
I mean, any posts made by me are for lurkers/readers of these blogs. They can make their own minds up.

You’ve reverted to the “smoking crack”, “conspiracy theorist”, “spitoon juice” derogatory line and are quoting from the Hoffman/Legge and Good bible of ways to avoid debate about NOC.

You’ve inflated your self worth and need to convince you. You’re irrelevant to me although I would say that people need to be wary of your motives here. No, it’s not a “disinfo agent” accusation. You’re just a time consuming weirdo.

There’s little hope that people with a predilection for all things ‘scientific’ will understand any of the following, whereas people with just a modicum of ‘spirituality’ within their being, should have no problems accepting the inherent Truth being explained here:

“…….
Someone witnesses, for example, an accident that is due to several “coincidences”. The shock of being present at the maiming or sudden death of one or more fellow beings causes an involuntary closure of the witness’s eyes—perhaps for only a few seconds. The image that through the sight and through the physical brain is registered in the astral and the psychic brains is then quite
incomplete, since these can receive an image only of what the witness has “seen”. Later, recalling what took place and what he or she experienced, the witness tries by thought to piece together the recorded fragments. As an “eye witness”, the witness should of course know what had happened, but not recalling20 closing the eyes21—perhaps at the decisive moment—the witness’s thought sets about reconstructing a plausible general impression: it happened in such and such a way. . . But with the constant repetition of such thoughts, new images assume—through the thought-channel, the cord—definite form in the astral brain. These images appear with every repetition of what the eyewitness has experienced, and, supported by the thought, they become steadily clearer until the individual becomes convinced of having seen the accident in every detail; and although he very well knows that his thoughts have dwelt at length on the same subject, still he is deceived by the train of images that his thought has composed. As a rule it is useless that another eyewitness unfolds the event for him as it has really taken place, for he will, in most cases, stoutly maintain that his is the correct version.
Such uncritical thinking serves no other purpose than to push back the original exact but fragmented image received by the astral and the psychic brains and to produce a train of self-composed images having nothing to do with reality.
If a more advanced or a high spirit is bound to the physical body, such self-suggestion will not be able to take place as the spiritual self will quickly survey the situation and understand that it has received that which has happened only in fragments. And if the individual tries to gather these fragments into a complete picture, he or she will likewise realize that it was their own thought which had filled in the gaps.
…….”

Please pay special attention to the last three lines in Skarlet’s witness account below, and compare this with the message desribed above.
It just might give some of you “doubters” a little more understanding about what some of the alleged “up close impact witnesses” would have experienced, when in the blink of an eye they became aware of a low flying plane followed by a huge explosion!

“As I came up along the Pentagon I saw helicopters. That’s not strange. It’s the Pentagon. Then I saw the plane. There were only a few cars on the road, we all stopped. I know I wanted to believe that plane was making a low descent into National Airport, but it was nearly on the road. And it was headed straight for the building. It made no sense. The pilot didn’t seem to be planning to pull up anytime soon. It was there. A huge jet. Then it was gone. A massive hole in the side of the Pentagon gushed smoke. The noise was beyond description. … I called my boss. I had no memory of how to work my cellphone. I hit redial and his number came up. “Something hit the Pentagon. It must have been a helicopter.” I knew that wasn’t true, but I heard myself say it. I heard myself believe it, if only for a minute. “Buildings don’t eat planes. That plane, it just vanished. There should have been parts on the ground. It should have rained parts on my car. The airplane didn’t crash. Where are the parts?” That’s the conversation I had with myself on the way to work. It made sense this morning. I swear that it did. … There seems to be no footage of the crash, only the site. The gash in the building looks so small on TV. The massiveness of the structure lost in the tight shots of the fire. There was a plane. It didn’t go over the building. It went into the building. I want them to find it whole, wedged between floors or something. I know that isn’t going to happen, but right now I pretend. I want to see footage of the crash. I want to make it make sense. I want to know why there’s this gap in my memory, this gap that makes it seem as though the plane simply became invisible and banked up at the very last minute, but I don’t think that’s going to happen.
– “skarlet”

‘Scarlet’ says: “I want to know why there’s this gap in my memory, this gap that makes it seem as though the plane simply became invisible and banked up at the very last minute, ….”

This you ‘translates’ to mean: “The plane had a split second to bank up and miss the building.”

Then you finish off by giving a comment to your own arbitrary ‘translation’, thus: “I find the physics of this hard to contemplate.”

Well, you obviously “invented” this ‘physics’ thing yourself, so that’s probably why you find it so “hard to contemplate”!

Had you instead correctly quoted the passage in ‘Scarlet’s’ account i was referring to in my post,
and at the same time had refrained from your unintelligent attempt at ‘distortion’, you would have found that there’s really nothing “hard” about any of this.

Your rather poor attempt at ‘duplicity’ is a bad reflection of your personality, but more than this, it also shows a total disrespect towards the owner of this blog.

Why you think that he doesn’t deserve the utmost honesty and sincerity from you, is beyond me!

That also settles some of the aerodynamic problems of supposedly travelling two feet off the ground, that some have articulated.

I’m still mulling over the sequencing of the explosion that would have to go off at just the right moment to obscure the plane…I would think it has to be just a split moment before it arrives so it can cut through the smoke and not seem past the building…from several angles. With the fireball involved, this is a lot like a tiger through a burning hoop. But there seems there would also be concussion. Wouldn’t that be risky?

If the famous 5 frames is totally bogus, rather than the instant fireball seen at impact, we might posit that there was first a simple smoke bomb that went off first, then after the plane had passed over the real destructive blasts occurred. Shaped charges may have been part of the “renovation” inside the walls themselves, and set right could possibly blow most of the force inward.

Great opening line above: “Hey smartass,” – that is almost as good as; “It was a dark and stormy night…”
…but updated to the modern hip-hop era. Anyway, insults have no effect on me, and really, I think you can do better than that if you put some effort into it. As it is, it is about as poetic as a street taunt. Why don’t you put some real imagination into it and come up with something REALLY scathing. I’d be delighted to read it.

Hmm…Oh yea, I wanted to respond to A. Wright, who tells us he is not American. I wanted to say that I am, but I am not Amerikan, which is a worthwhile distinction between the founding Americans loyal to a republican form, and the postmodern Amerikans loyal to the Empire. So Wright isn’t an American, but has certainly proven himself an Amerikan. {Hey is this something from ‘West Side Story’?}

Why you think that he doesn’t deserve the utmost honesty and sincerity from you, is beyond me!”

Whether you could know one way or another ‘tee emm teed off’, I have always been honest in my postings. And I have the greatest respect for Mr. McKee, who seems more than fair in his management of this blog.

Let’s see your MO again…pick up that “more than fair” part and run with it {grin}.

This is obviously not true at all, as i pointed out in my previous post.

And here you go again:

“So I ask, are you seriously saying the plane had a minute to bank up?

Nah…I understand…it’s the ‘feeding frenzy’ syndrome.”

This time you ask a really stupid question, which has no relevance to anything i’ve actually said.
And on top of that, you then bloody well proceed to answer your own dumb question!!

1. You completely ignore Scarlet’s true lament: “I want to know why there’s this gap in my memory, ‘THIS GAP THAT MAKES IT SEEM AS THOUGH’ the plane simply became invisible and banked up at the very last minute, ….”

2. You completely ignore the fact that Scarlet must have been in shock – hence her remarks about ‘the helicopter’ and her difficulty with the cellphone.

3. You completely ignore the fact that she never let us know the position where she stopped her car, or from what direction she saw the plane, nor how far away from her it was. Neither does she give us an approximate estimation of the height the plane was flying.

And in spite of all this, you still found a need to write the following inane rubbish!!!:

“The plane had a split second to bank up and miss the building. I find the physics of this hard to contemplate.”

C’mon hybridrogue – i’m sure you can do much better ….than this pathetic effort of yours!

“This is obviously not true at all, as i pointed out in my previous post”

I am getting sick of having my “honesty” questioned for having a different perspective, or take on some little thing, or misinterpreting your intentions in placing some pasted information on the board.

You assert that this following comment is “complete rubbish”…

‘The plane had a split second to bank up and miss the building. I find the physics of this hard to contemplate.’

In what is this ‘complete rubbish’? I will tell you in what asshole – in YOUR opinion it is complete rubbish.

Then you accuse me thus:

” You completely ignore Scarlet’s true lament: “I want to know why there’s this gap in my memory, ‘THIS GAP THAT MAKES IT SEEM AS THOUGH’ the plane simply became invisible and banked up at the very last minute, ….”

This after my first post in recognition of the soul felt honesty I found in Scarlet’s account.

Yes I can “do better than this” – this nit picking trivial bullshit you and your comrades seem to think is reasonable debate.

I think you’re a liar, I don’t think you have ever played a tambourine in your life. If so prove it you disingenuous pile of wretched fecal matter.

My OP dealt exclusively with the problems of conflicting witness statements regarding plane impact or none impact at the pentagon, and why some people could be confused about what they actually saw.

You didn’t address this at all, but instead decided to tell me that ‘the plane had a split second to bank up and miss the building’.

This made me suspect you were either some kind of disinfo, shill or the like, and that Legge perhaps had been ‘whispering’ in your ear not to mention anything about ‘witness accounts’!

Thought i better try to find out whether you could actually think for yourself, and by using your own rather colourful, at times haughty way of expression, i tried “forcing” you to come back to the subject at hand. That didn’t work.

Being a bit more specific the next time, i tried again, but that didn’t work either.

Looks like you’re hellbent on solely talking about ‘split seconds’, so i’ll leave you alone with that.

All in all, i think our little exchange has been worthwhile from my point of view, in the sense that i now feel i know you so much better than i did before.

By the way, my ‘name’ has nothing to do with the instrument called ‘tambourine’!

‘Tamborine’ is the name of the mountain where i live, and derives from an aboriginal name meaning “sweet potato”.

Of course I was being facetious in calling you a liar about banging your jingle bells. I hope you are at least that prescient to have gotten that.

Let me say now, that I got it, first time around, the implications that Miss Scarlet was speaking to ‘suppressed memories’. So all the subsequent chatter is gas in the wind.

I did sincerely wonder about the matter of time it would take to pull up from the position the plane is reported to be at moments before the “impact” – that I have since been persuaded differently is, of course not going to count to anyone determined to frame me as a “disrupter, liar, or g-man”.

And this is my point about you jumping hot so instantly, as seems to be the case of all of you true believers gathered on this site.

Some of us still have questions. There hasn’t been anything proven conclusively – you only have a strong circumstantial case in your ‘NoC-Fly-over’ hypothesis, no matter how thoroughly convinced you are. Yes, I do see it as a strong case circumstantially, but at this point I don’t see this proven as beyond all reasonable doubt.

My whole point in the later part of our exchange is that calling someone a liar, simply because they disagree with you is unwarranted, stupid and in fact liable.

So, yes we can both take away something from this exchange. I think your an asshole, you think I’m an asshole. That is very much the cycle that makes the world go ’round these days.

Now that most of the party has left for next door at the Gage thread, I thought I would offer you as a window upon one of my assertions – not as ‘proof’ in itself but a beginning if you choose to research the matter:

The ancestral lineage of the Al-Sauds goes back to the Jewish tribe of Banu Qunaiqa of 7th century Arabia. The 18th century founder of the Wahabi sect, Muhammed ibn Abd Al Wahhab, had his origin from the Jewish community of Turkey. His grandfather was a Turkish Jew belonging to the Doenmeh community, as the “secret Jews” of Turkey were known who collaborated with secular dictator, Mostafa Kemal Ataturk (himself a Doenmeh) to secularize Turkey. It’s officially known that present day ‘Saudi Arabia’ is the outcome of an alliance between Muhammed ibn Abd Al Wahhab and Muhammed Ibn Saud started in the 18th century. The deal was for Ibn Saud to protect Al Wahhab and allow him to spread his fanatical anti-Quranic values in the name of “Islam,” and in return, Al-Wahab would offer recognition to Saud’s rule as the head of the “Islamic Ummah.”

In reality, the Arabian peninsula has been occupied since the last 200 plus years by a grand orthodox Jewish alliance in the garb of Islam. But their secret loyalty and affections are still firmly grounded within their roots.

Also read: Brief history of the destructive Saudi Wahabbism with British help. Check the information on the genealogy of the Sauds at: Islamic Intelligence blog
Taken from Saudhouse – Saudis and Zionists, avowed brethren.

The truth about the roots of so-called “Al Saud Royalty” can be found in a book had been written in 1810 by (Ibn Rushd .. Or Ibn Roshd) where he was a travelling story teller and a researcher. He had written about an individual by the name (Merkhan/Murdakhai Bin Abraham Bin Moshe Al Dounami) a trader from Al Basra-Iraq and how he had claimed that he’s from Al jazeera but his father had fled earlier to AL Basra and changed his name for security reasons.. Bla Bla Bla. And Merkhan married a bedouin woman and had sons that named Muhammad (naturally) and Saud.

Now Ibn Roshed had written such book nearly 125 years prior to the unfortunate existance of Abdul Aziz (a documented desert pirate) and his cahoot alliance with the British invasion and his services to their needs. Where Ibn Roshed never dreamed that the children of Mordakhai will become “”Royals” on the hands of the British invasion.

Later, the criminal sons of Abdul Aziz managed to collect several copies of such book and destroy it. BUT …. There is a copy in the Congress library (several atempts through the UCLA & Cal-State University, but the Congress library has A HOLD STATUS on it since 1981 and will not release it.

Holy crap, that’s really interesting. Do you have any thoughts about the project now? How would you have handled it if you’d stayed on? My impression is that Howard Cohen has been getting a lot of pressure from the “let’s pretend the Pentagon doesn’t exist” crowd.

Well, I will say this. When I was on board, the project was still called “Confessions of a 9/11 Conspirator” and one of the first things I said at our meeting at Dupar’s was, “You have to change that title.” They resisted. But now, new title.

I’m not quite sure how I would have handled it, and in hindsight I’m glad I was let go. I don’t want my debut narrative feature to be about politics or 9/11.

All in all, I wish Howard the best of luck with his project. He has a long road ahead.

You said some complimentary things about it when I submitted it to you a few months ago and offered to alert others about its existence, which I greatly appreciate. If I’m correct that Violation appears to have stalled, with ongoing arguments about content and people connected with it leaving, etc., I’m wondering whether this might be a good time to re-introduce False Flag as a possible alternative.

If you’ll remember, I’m offering it essentially as a gift, expecting only a nominal writer’s fee or NOTHING, depending on the circumstances of production. I’ll leave it to you to determine whether or not to grant the screenplay further exposure via your blog. Following is the information I emailed you initially:

Thanks to the Internet and an increasing number of enterprising and courageous individuals like yourself, the information now available on a 9/11 cover-up is voluminous and convincing. But my perception is that the audience for acting on it is a small fraction of what it could and needs to be. And I suspect that even the most damning, irrefutable additional evidence won’t grow it substantially. The choir is being preached to with brilliance and passion, but it’s time to enlarge the congregation. Exponentially.

All this evidential intelligence needs to be presented in such a way that it permeates the cultural equivalent of the blood-brain barrier. How can we bypass that impregnable human defense system known as denial? Drama is certainly one way. That’s what Aristophanes was up to with The Birds, after all.

My fictional dramatic screenplay FALSE FLAG draws heavily on two primary sources to tell the story of the 9/11 cover-up. One is the brilliant “Miracles” essay by David Ray Griffin, who read the script and provided additional invaluable feedback. The other is a heavily researched and footnoted 58-page essay by E.P. Heidner which “ties together many previously unexplained threads in the 9/11 mystery that are most compelling,” in the words of Fred Burks, on whose website wanttoknow.info the essay appeared. Following is the script’s premise:

FRANK lost his 26-year-old daughter LISA. ANNA lost her husband ARTURO, a cook anticipating promotion to sous-chef at Windows on the World. ANITA’s husband ALEX was one of 658 employees of Cantor Fitzgerald who lost their lives in the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers. Through the eyes and the stories of these fictional characters, we gain new compassion for the victims, and new perspective on the events, of 9/11.

The latest draft of the screenplay is posted on scribd.com at the following link initially emailed to me by Fred Burks, who helped me get it online to be accessed by people like yourself.

Though a long way from going viral – which I never expected it to do as a screenplay as opposed to the ideal and inexpensive movie that can be made from it for potential YouTube or vimeo distribution – FALSE FLAG has reached well over 6,000 readers, including many major figures in the 9/11 cover-up movement. But I’m still looking for a producer/director and perhaps you can help put this in front of the right person.

I’ll do my best to look at the latest draft of your screenplay. I give you full marks to writing something on this subject. And I agree that A Violation of Trust seems to be in limbo. I wonder if it will ever be made. And if it is made I wonder if it will have the edge it needs to have. If it tries to avoid offending it could be worse than useless. I hope this doesn’t happen.

You can now find us at truthandshadows.com!

To reach this site, you can now simply go to truthandshadows.com (no need to type in "wordpress") and you be redirected here. This will save people all over the world tens of seconds over their lifetimes!

Email Subscription

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Plato on shadows

Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood let alone believed by the masses. – Plato

Choosing dictatorship

A society whose citizens refuse to see and investigate the facts, who refuse to believe that their government and their media will routinely lie to them and fabricate a reality that is contrary to verifiable facts, is a society that chooses and deserves the police state dictatorship it is going to get. – Ian Williams Goddard

The stages of truth

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
– Arthur Schoepenhauer

Origin of the term ‘False Flag’

The term originated in the days of naval warfare. Ships would hoist the flag of their enemy, enabling them to approach closer to enemy ships than otherwise they could. They then could open fire with the advantage of surprise. The combination of secrecy and deception is a hallmark of all false flag operations.
The definitional issues of false flag go well beyond the two components mentioned above and will be tackled in Part 3. The false flag phenomenon encompasses false flag events, pseudo events, front organizations and players (agents). In the events category the not-always-reliable Wikipedia provides a good definition:
False flag operations are covert operations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_operation) conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations […] designed to deceive the public in such a way that the operations appear as if they are being carried out by other entities. […] False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and have been used in peace-time; for example, during Italy's strategy of tension (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_of_ tension).
Outcomes are one criterion for classifying false flag events, pseudo events, fronts and agents. The strategy of tension, mentioned in the Wikipedia definition, includes all four forms. Ironically a pretty good explanation of the outcomes criterion can be found on an anti-Truther site, Skeptoid:*
If one were to work solely from [“conspiracy hotbeds”] it would be easy to get the impression that our recent history is jammed with prefabricated incidents designed to enable our government to grab more power, take away the rights of the common people and/or line their already fattened pockets.
You got it right there, Skeptoid.
• http://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/01/21/false-flag-attacks-myth-and-reality/
.– Barrie Zwicker

Exposing the lies

The World-Wide 9/11 Truth movement is currently the largest investigative journalism project on the planet. – Barrie Zwicker

On conspiracy theories

Every time someone makes fun of the idea of “conspiracy theories” they are exhibiting a conditioned response – like salivating when they hear a bell or believing a TV news program. – Craig McKee

Reach Craig by email

It took long enough, but Truth and Shadows now has its own email for those of you wanting to send messages to me that aren't intended for the comments section. To reach me, email truthandshadows@yahoo.com.
Some of you already have been using my personal email to reach me with blog related messages or questions, and you can certainly continue to do that if you wish. - Craig McKee